Development Panel Will Meet on Tuesday 28 May 2013 at 1.00 Pm in the Oval Centre, Salterbeck Drive, Workington

17 May 2013

Development Panel Will meet on Tuesday 28 May 2013 at 1.00 pm in The Oval Centre, Salterbeck Drive, Workington

Membership:

Councillor Peter Bales (Chairman)

Councillor John (Binky) Armstrong Councillor Carole Armstrong Councillor Bill Bacon Councillor Nicky Cockburn Councillor Len Davies Councillor Bill Finlay Councillor Chris Garrard Councillor Joe Holliday Councillor Margaret Jackson Councillor William Jefferson Councillor Peter Kendall Councillor Jim Lister Councillor Billy Miskelly Councillor Ron Munby Councillor Margaret Snaith Councillor Sam Standage Councillor Celia Tibble Councillor Martin Wood Councillor Joan Wright

Members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting. If you have any questions or queries simply contact Paula McKenzie on 01900 702557.

Agenda

1. Apologies for absence

2. Declaratio n of Interest

Councillors/Staff to give notice of any disclosable pecuniary interest, other registrable interest or any other interest and the nature of that interest relating to any item on the agenda in accordance with the adopted Code of Conduct.

3. Questions

To answer questions from members of the public – 2 days notice of which must have been given in writing or by electronic mail.

4. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0635 - Wind Turbine - Leesrigg Farm, Mealsgate, Wigton (Pages 1 - 30)

5. Development Panel - 2-2013 -0140 - Extensions to agricultural building - Whitehead Brow, Mealsgate, Wigton (Pages 31 - 36)

6. Development Panel - 2-2013 -0253 - Replacement of windows - Criffel Inn, Criffel Streeet, Silloth (Pages 37 - 42)

7. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0916 - Wind Turbine - Land at Fox House Farm (Pages 43 - 70)

8. Development Panel - 2-2012 -0914 - Wind Turbine - Land at West House Farm, Dearham (Pages 71 - 98)

9. Development Panel - 2-2013 -0128 - Re -use of former domestic annex as a single dwelling - Jane Croft, Winscales, Workington (Pages 99 - 108)

10. Development Panel - 02 -2012 -9011 - 4 Wind Turbines - Lillyhall Landfill Site, Joseph Noble Road, Lillyhall (Pages 109 - 126)

11. Development Panel - 2-2013 -0154 - Listed Building Consent for removal of fence and rebuild walls and gate - Limes Farm, Dundraw (Pages 127 - 132)

12. Development Panel - 2-2013 -0152 - Removal of fence and rebuild with walls and gates (Pages 133 - 138)

13. Appeal Decision - 2-2012 -0602 - Scholars Green, Wigton (Pages 139 - 140)

Chief Executive

Date of next meeting Tuesday 11 June 2013 at 1.00 pm The Wave - Maryport

Agenda Item 4

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0635

Reference No: 2/2012/0635 Received: 16 August 2012 Proposed Erection of Endurance wind turbine on 24m mast with a blade tip Development: height of 34.6m. Resubmission to 2/2012/0425 Location: Leesrigg Farm Mealsgate Aspatria Wigton Applicant: Mr B Carr Drawing Numbers: 001 - General Location Plan 002 - Location Plan 003 - Heritage Assets Location Plan 004 - Block Plan E-3120-50kW Monopole Rev A - Proposed Elevation amended plan received 9 April 2013

Supporting Information

Design and Access Statement Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Appendix 1 Report of Likely Impact of Proposed Turbine on Setting of Heritage Asset Appendix 2 Heritage Assets Location Plan Desk Top Bird survey Wind Noise Email received 12 September 2012 Generalised Noise Predictions Photomontages Viewpoints 1, 2 and 3

Constraints: British Coal Area PROW(PLN) 203001

Policies: National Planning Policy Framework

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Policy CO13 - The setting of a Conservation Area Policy CO18 - Setting of a Listed building Policy EM17 - Renewable Energy

Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN10 - Restoration, after uses cease Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection

Page 1 Policy EN24 - Protecting Historic Parks and gardens Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy EN5 - Pollution Control

Relevant Planning Screening Opinion letter dated 28 September 2/2012/0635. History: None EIA Development.

Representations: Boltons P arish Council Objection. On the grounds of cumulative impact with turbines at High Pow, Wharrels Hill and with the consented schemes at Tallentire and West Newton. Also with regard to sequential cumulative impact and the loss of visual amenity to residents of Allhallows and surrounding parishes.

All Hallows PCC Objection. Due to: - The location of the church yard and the visual impact on the locality. - The listed Old Church and churchyard is still open to use as a graveyard and for outdoor worship. - The route of the Kingate to Harby Brow footpath and the adverse affect on tourism and the use of the footpath by parishioners. - The wind turbine development may cause stress and add to a feeling of the rural communities feeling of isolation and being disenfranchised. - Concerned about the proliferation of turbines in the locality.

Natural England - No objection.

RSPB - The applicant has undertaken a desk based bird survey. Based on the location of the turbine and with this additional information, the RSPB broadly agree with the summary of the desk based report, which concludes that the proposal does not appear to be in a key feeding area for bird species sensitive to wind turbine developments. Disturbance displacement is considered to be unlikely. The RSPB would suggest a precautionary approach for turbines near bird sensitive alert area. The proposed turbines are in close proximity to an ‘alert’ area for pink footed geese.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust - objection based on lack of ecological assessment.

English Heritage - The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

Defence Infrastructure Organisation - The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has no objection to the proposal.

Page 2

Environmental Health - No objection subject to planning conditions relating to noise levels.

Cumbria Highways - No objections subject to planning conditions.

Natural England - An EIA is not required for this application. The site is not located within, adjacent to or in close proximity to any Special Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Area of Conservation (SAC), or Special Protection Area (SPA) or Ramsar site. The site is not within, nor is sufficiently close to a National Park, AONB, or Heritage Coast to impact upon the purposes for which the sites are designated. The development was considered not likely to affect any significant population of protected species sufficient to require an EIA.

County Archaeologist - No objections

Civil Aviation Authority - No objection

NATS Safeguarding - No objection

Aquirva - No objection

Allerdale BC Access Officer - No objections

Cumbria County Council - Do not consider the proposal for a Category 1 Application.

The application has been advertised on site, and adjoining owners have been notified.

5 letters of support:

No adverse effect on Riglees Bungalow; no objection from English Heritage; impact on listed building negligible, unlikely to adversely affect safety; research has shown that pink footed geese avoid wind turbines.

43 letters of objection have been received: • Through the siting, size of the turbine and the prominence, the proposal would have a major adverse impact on the existing landscape character and the visual amenity of the existing area and wider landscape; • Unacceptable impacts on residential property by nature of its height and proximity to residential homes; • Danger to ecology, particularly birds; • Public safety risk due to blade failure, structural failure and fire and ice throw;

Page 3 • More carbon dioxide is created building the wind turbines than it saves during its lifetime; • EIA should be required; • There should be reuse of resources; • Does not support tourism; • Does not enhance or value the landscape; • The landscape is at capacity for wind turbines; • Noise issues; • Not clear if the scheme is for commercial purposes; • High Pow Farm wind farm is not mentioned; • Within 5km there are 6 other turbines either already built, approved, plus 11 pending or in scoping; • Cumulative effects both from static viewpoints and in sequence when travelling; • Recent applications in the surrounding area that need to be taken into account are turbines at Edderside, Pelutho and Tarns and each turbine adds to the cumulative baseline. • Residents of Watchhill have a panoramic view of most turbines within this part of Allerdale, including the Hellrigg array; • The cumulative effect of turbine developments in the area is now dominating and defining, creating an effect which is industrialising and altering the qualities of our rural landscapes and the tipping point has been reached if not surpassed; • The electricity pylons are already dominant features in the landscape and masts at Anthorne and Caldbeck; • Stressful for local residents; • Adversely effect on tourism and Cumbria Tourism has objected to scheme; • Back up power required; • Inefficient; • Solway Plain part of Hadrian’s Wall trail; • A George Moor Trail should be developed and this will adversely affect tourism assets; • Turbines produce more co2 than save and makes no difference to global warming; • High costs to tax payers to support subsidies; • Not domestic scale; • Disturbs sleep patterns; • Inefficient noise assessment; • Adversely affects footpaths; • 30 turbines either built or to be built within 5km of the site; • Coal mining activities may affect surface stability; • Turbines should be at sea; • Visible from Skiddaw and Lake District National Park; • Adversely affects grade 1 listed Harby Brow Peel Tower; • Adverse effect on tranquil setting;

Page 4 • Viewpoints do not show visual impact, a much clearer view of visual impact when moving west along the B5299; • No viewpoint from Watchill which has a rising land; • The locality is becoming a ‘field’ of turbines; • The landscape is becoming blighted; • There is negligible contribution to power supply; • There has been a proliferation of small scale turbines • Within 100m is a well used footpath; • Close to Old Allhallows church and grave yard; • Negative house values.

Friends of Rural Cumbria Environment (Force)

Force have objected to the scheme on the following grounds: • The assessment of cumulative impact that the turbine would have is inadequate; • There is a cumulative impact of greater than local importance; • The turbine is out of scale and proportion to the surrounding countryside and the necessity for a machine of the size has not been demonstrated; • The proposal does not produce any benefit which would outweigh its detrimental impact and the harm to local amenity; • The agent has supplied insufficient noise data to ensure the well being of occupants of houses which are close to the occupation site; • A number of sensitive residential receptors in the area have been so far excluded from the assessment of effects. • Visual intrusion from listed buildings Harby Brow (450m), Whitehall (700m) and disused church (600m). • Impact on local residents and visitors on this unspoiled and tranquil part of the countryside. • Cumulative effect with other turbine developments within the area (Wharrels Hill, High Pow). • Travelling along the West Cumbria Coast along the major routes of the A595 and A596 towards Carlisle, the following operation turbine developments are visible: Winscales, Hellrigg, Wharrel Hill, High Pow and Great Orton and 4 turbines have been installed at Lanrigg within the last year. Also along the A596 is the Flimby turbine development and work has commenced on the 6 turbines at Tallentire and the turbine development at West Newton. Further turbine development is proposed at Winscales and the Orton area. The operator at High Pow want to put up a further 3 turbines. • In the immediate area around Leesrigg Farm there are turbine developments at Crookdale and High Aketon.

Page 5 Cumbria Tourist Board - Concerned that the proposal for a wind turbine in this location will have a detrimental impact on a major tourism development project at Brayton Lake Lodges, near Aspatria. Tourism in Allerdale is an important part of the economic development plan for the area and development which potentially threatens the viability of existing and future potential tourism businesses is of a great concern to Cumbria Tourism and the Western Lake District Tourism Initiative. Cumbria Tourism is not against the principle of wind developments but in this instance the objection relates to harmful effect on the local economy and in particular visitor dependent businesses in the locality. Report Proposal

This proposal is a resubmission scheme for a single turbine at Leesgill Farm, Mealsgate. The scheme has been resubmitted as a non EIA development but now with further consideration of the heritage assets of the locality.

The proposal is to install an Endurance E3120 turbine on farmland at Leesrigg farm, Prospect. A three bladed turbine would be on a mounted 24 metres monopole tower and has a blade diameter of 19.2 metres, giving a maximum height tip of 34.6 metres.

The turbine (head casing and blades) will be constructed from epoxy resin material and the tower will be constructed from galvanised steel. The wind turbine structure will be off-white in colour (RAL 9003 and RAL 9016).

Characteristics of development:

The proposal is for a 50kW wind turbine, which falls well below the 5MW indicative threshold of Circular 02/99. The proposed turbine would be a tall structures, albeit slim line, it would be the largest structure within the immediate locality.

Site and Surroundings

The wind turbine is proposed on agricultural land approximately 450 metres due south of the B5299 as it runs from Fletchertown and Watch Hill.

The turbine will be accessed via a new track across a grazed field leading from an existing farm track. The track will be made of crushed stone.

Requirement for Environmental Impact Assessment

The Local Planning Authority has issued a screening opinion that the proposed development does not constitute EIA development

Page 6 (see letter dated 28 September 2012).

Planning Policy

Renewable energy developments are supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which outlines that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development under paragraph 14. Under Chapter 10 of the NPPF it outlines there is a presumption to approve applications for renewable energy proposals unless material considerations indicate otherwise (paragraph 98).

• 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 if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable

This positive approach to renewables is underpinned by the Climate Change Act and binding legal targets to reduce carbon emissions.

The County Council has also produced the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document.

As the property is not located within any special landscape designations (including local) the proposal would be in compliance with Policy EN25 of the Local Plan when read in conjunction with the NPPF chapters 109, 110 and 115.

The objectives of Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan seek to safeguard sensitive development from pollution generating proposals which would concur with the objectives of the NPPF.

The proposal as a whole is considered to be in line with the NPPF.

Overall (as reflected in the policies) the merits of the proposed development relate to balancing whether the economic, social and environmental benefits of the proposed renewable energy development outweigh any environmental impact of the proposed turbines.

Assessment - Needs/Benefits

Page 7

The needs and benefits of the proposal are important elements in the overall planning balance. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.

The increased development of renewable energy resources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government’s commitments on both climate change and renewable energy.

Positive planning which facilitates renewable energy developments can contribute to the Government’s overall strategy on sustainability and renewable energy development, as emphasised in the Energy White Paper (2007), The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) the UK Energy Road Map (2011) and a significant number of other policies and commitments. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.

The Cumbria Renewable Energy and Deployment Study (August 2011) confirmed that the capacity of operational or consented renewable energy schemes within Cumbria totalled 285.36MW.

The North West Regional Spatial Strategy and the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan is to be abolished 20 May 2013 but remains relevant as an evidence base source, but energy targets within the documents are excluded.

The UK Renewable Energy Strategy recognises the importance of both electricity and heat from renewable sources and seeks around 35% of electricity and heat to come from renewable and low carbon (non nuclear) sources by 2020. Of the overall figure deployed or consented within Cumbria, 70% is located within the district of Allerdale.

As such, the consented/installed capacity for power and heat from renewable energy development is considered to be substantial and to make a positive contribution to addressing climate change.

Regardless of these figures, the imperative for further renewable energy within national policy and strategy is clear. Therefore, the weight to be attached to the deployment of renewable energy is not considered to have diminished.

Achieving the binding national targets for the proportion of energy

Page 8 from renewable sources and the reductions sought in greenhouse gases can only be done by an accumulation of local projects of varying scale. Thus, based solely on national performance, a need for developments of this type exists. These are material considerations that weigh significantly in the planning balance.

Landscape and Visual Impact

Turbines require exposed sites to be operationally efficient. The extent of the impact of wind turbine development on the landscape is dependent on the existing character and quality of the landscape, the degree of which land is altered by human intervention, the extent of public views, taking account of screening by land forms and vegetation and the size and nature of the turbine.

The aim of the landscape and visual assessment is to identify, predict and evaluate potential key effects arising from the proposed development. Wherever possible, identified effects are quantified, but the very nature of landscape and visual assessment means that there is an element of subjectivity.

The landscape sensitivity is assessed and the magnitude of change on the landscape due to the proposal and then impact on specific receptors are considered.

It is noted that no landscaping is proposed, however the applicant has submitted a Landscape and Visual Assessment with accompanying photomontages with the application.

The applicant has carried out these works and provided a LVIA that includes 3 viewpoints and 3 receptor groups.

Within the Cumbria County Council Landscape Classification, the site lies within Landscape Character Area: 5a Ridge and Valley.

Landscape Character Sub Type 5a (Lowland-Ridge and Valley)

The site falls in local landscape subtype Lowland Ridge and Valley (sub type 5a) and the key characteristics are described as: a series of ridges and valleys rises gently toward the limestone fringes of the Lakeland Fells; well managed regular shaped medium to large pasture fields; hedge bound pasture fields dominate, interspersed with native woodland, tree clumps and plantations; scattered farms and linear villages found along ridges; and large scale structures generally scarce.

Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document identifies the landscape as having a capacity to accommodate

Page 9 schemes of 3-5 turbines, or exceptionally 6-9 turbines.

Landscape Value and Condition

There are no national landscape designations which directly affect the site. The closest point of the Solway AONB lies 10km to the west and the closest part of the Lake District National Park is 4.5 km to the south. It is considered that the impact on nationally designated landscapes would be negligible.

The applicant considers the landscape within the vicinity of the site has been degraded by human intervention to include agricultural changes, creating managed fields, the erection of large agricultural buildings attached to scattered farm steadings, and there has been some disappearance of field boundaries that were marked by hedgerow, and there are electrical and telephone lines and poles. That said it is considered the landscape is in relatively good condition.

Landscape Key Characteristics

The sensitivity to change of the key characteristics and the ability of a particular type of landscape to accommodate change brought about by the development without material effects on its integrity reflecting key aspects of the landscape character including the scale and the complexity of the landscape and the degree of ‘wildness’ and ‘remoteness’ is considered.

The site lies at the bottom of a shallow valley formed by the River Ellen. The landscape is characterised by its agricultural character interspersed with blocks of woodland (deciduous and coniferous). These blocks of woodland provide some screening and this provides some ability to absorb change in the wider area even if local impacts are striking.

The applicant has set out that there will be no loss of key landscape features and it is considered that its characteristics will not be significantly altered.

The access track will be a new feature but post installation it will be less obtrusive as vegetation becomes more established. The effects of the turbine are reversible given the predicted life of the turbine is 25-30 years.

The nearest road is the B5299 around 450 metres to the north and the nearest residential properties not under the control of the applicant are Crossings Cottage and Riglees Bungalow, (circa 340m and 290 metres respectively). The nearest public footpath is around 125 metres to the west.

Page 10 From the road to the north the immediate back drop will be a block of trees to the south of the turbine site with a more distant backdrop of the Lakeland fells.

In the open countryside in the vicinity of the site vertical built elements are confined to electricity poles, feed silos and scattered agricultural buildings. The large modern agricultural buildings at Leesrigg and associated silos are prominent features especially when viewed from the public footpaths near the turbine site.

It is considered that there will be no changes to the landscape fabric, other than the provision of a crushed stone access track required for construction and future maintenance.

Assessment of Landscape Impact

It is considered that the overall sensitivity of the landscape change is medium and the landscape sensitivity is considered to be medium and the overall landscape impact is considered to be moderate.

Landscape Effects from Viewpoints

• Viewpoint 1 - View South from B5299 at point nearest turbine. Approximately 450m from proposed turbine. Predicted view by applicant advises the turbine partially obscured by vegetation and turbine seen against backdrop of fells and that trees to east of turbine similar in height. Landscape fabric would remain intact. The landscape sensitivity is considered to be medium by the applicant with effects on landscape character a moderate/ minor and not significant.

• Viewpoint 2 - View from public footpath to east of the site. Approximately 255m from proposed turbine. Applicant advises the turbine would be a new feature in the landscape and relatively dominant. The landscape sensitivity by the applicant is considered low but the magnitude of change is deemed to be substantial and the effects on the landscape character are considered to be moderate but not significant.

• Viewpoint 3 - View from public footpath to west of site. Approximately 170m from the proposed turbine. Applicant advises the turbine would be a prominent new feature in landscape and that there would be no screening from the viewpoint. The landscape sensitivity was considered low by the applicant although the magnitude of change is considered to be substantial and the turbine is considered to be a prominent new element and therefore the effect on the landscape character assessed as being moderate but

Page 11 not significant.

Visual Effects

In terms of visual impact, the baseline for the survey is up to a 5km radius from the site. The applicant’s report indentifies that the magnitude of the impact would be slight and therefore not significant.

Potentially significant visual effects could be expected at properties within 1km of the turbine with unobstructed views although it is noted that orientation of the dwellings; local topography and intervening vegetation combine to reduce the potential visibility of a wind turbine.

Residential Receptors

Rigglees - Around 290 metres north east from the turbine but due to the orientation of the house the views of the turbine would be largely oblique.

Crossings Cottage - Around 340 metres north east from the proposal and lies directly in the line of sight. Some screening from siting of Riglees Cottage. The submitted LVIA concludes that there will be a modest impact on nearby properties.

Kings Gate Cottage - approx 440 metres with outlook to south but well screened by mature trees and there is an oblique angle.

King Gate House approx 470 metres screened by trees and oblique orientation.

Upmanby – 670 metres north west from proposal with very open southerly aspect but an oblique angle.

Vicarage - approx 460 metres north east of proposal with main elevation south west facing but significant intervening trees.

Whitehall - approx 620 metres to south east - Dense trees to rear protecting setting and outlook.

The Coach House – approx 620 metres to south east screened by topography and trees.

The Shieling – approx 960 Km north west in an elevated location at Watchhill with views over proposed site with other turbine development in distant views. No harmful impact due to distance, topography and tree screening.

Harby Brow - (see listed section of report below). Approximately

Page 12 650 metres to south west, limited impact due to topography and oblique views.

Harby Brow Mill Cottage – approximately 660 metres to south west. No direct outlook

Harby Brow Mill – approximately 630 metres to south west. No direct outlook and screened by topography.

To the north east are the dwellings of Leeside 590 metres, Birchwood 620 metres and Iona 660 metres and 1 and 2 Leesrigg Cottages, there is intervening topography and screening from trees protecting the outlook from these properties.

To the east is Hall House approx 900m metres distant, Banklands 940 metres distant and East Lodge 980 metres distant and the turbine is screened by vegetation and topography.

Visual Impact from Settlements

The distance from Fletchertown is 3km away and Mealsgate 1.2km away. Visual impact from the turbine is considered to be slight.

It is noted that the visual effect on Watch Hill has not been addressed by a viewpoint assessment.

The applicant considers there to be moderate visual effects on residents would be experienced from a small number of dwellings with 1km of the site. The impact on dwellings further than the 1km distance of the proposal is considered to be slight.

The applicant assesses that all properties would have views restricted by woodland, buildings, distance or orientation and that the magnitude of change would be therefore negligible to moderate depending on the degree of restriction. The applicant considers the magnitude of change would be low given the limited number of properties affected. The effect on visual amenity is considered to be moderate but not significant by the applicant.

The overall impact is considered to be slight/ moderate.

Visual Impact from Traffic Corridors

A public highway (B5299) is 450 metres from the site. The applicant considers the views from the turbine would be oblique to the direction of travel because of the orientation of the road and so the turbine would be more prominent for passengers than drivers. Approaching from the east intermittent views will be obtained with more open views from a greater distance as the road at a higher

Page 13 level.

The applicant considers the turbines would be partially obscured by farm buildings and woodland when viewed looking south from the B5299 and north from the A595.

Approaching the site from Fletchertown the applicant considers the turbine will be obscured by dense woodland on the southern side of the road and would only be visible for a short stretch beyond the entrance to Leesrigg Farm.

From all roads around the site, roadside hedges and intervening trees provides some partial screening from a drivers perspective. It is considered the visual amenity of road users is considered to be slight in the closer locality but more distant views have not been considered within viewpoints notably from Watch Hill.

It is considered that due to the height of the turbine and the intervening topography and vegetation that the impact on the wider landscape and on more distant visual receptors at Watch Hill, that the adverse impact is not so significant to warrant refusal of the scheme.

Visual Impact from Public Rights of Way

Two public footpaths are within 300 metres of the site. Views of the turbine from these footpaths would be uninterrupted and there would be significant visual impact.

The magnitude of change would therefore be substantial where there are clear views of the turbine. The overall change is considered to be moderate however; given the paths form part of a much wider network and because these views are already impacted by farm structures (buildings and silos at Leesrigg Farm).

The effects on visual amenity are considered by the applicant to be major/moderate to significant.

There is also a 9 metres wooden pole which crosses the field in which the turbine will be placed.

Summary of Visual Impact by Applicant

Individual households within 1km of the proposed turbine = Moderate/slight visual impact.

Road users= Moderate/slight on B5299

Users of Public Footpath network= Moderate

Page 14 The proposal is on improved farm land rather than wild moorland at higher levels. As such officers concur with the submitted LVIA insofar as the likely visual effects of the proposed turbine are not considered to be significant to warrant refusal.

Cumulative Impact

The applicants amended LVIA assesses the cumulative effects (simultaneous, successive, sequential and perceptual) caused by the development of the site in conjunction with other operational, approved and submitted sites within the planning system.

The siting of the proposed turbine is such that there would be no potential for the proposals to be perceived as an extension to any existing or approved schemes due to the difference in scale and separation distances.

Cumulative effects can increase in the perception of wind turbine development as seen from fixed points from which more than one wind turbine would now be seen from different parts of the landscape.

From the turbine site, the 8 wind turbines at Bothel are visible but the distance is 5km and as such it is considered that the cumulative combined effects on the visual receptors from fixed points would be limited and the turbines at Bolton Low Houses are located approx. 4.5km to the east.

There have been a number of applications approved for turbine development within a 5km radius, including;

• A single turbine at Prospect House High Scales (20m to tip) (at appeal), • Two turbines at High Aketon Farm (27m to tip), • A single turbine at Brayton Park (62m to tip) (approved but not constructed); • A revision to the approved Brayton Park turbine (at appeal). • Pending applications for single turbines are located at Goose Green Farm, Lanehead Farm, High Scales (at appeal); • A large scale turbine development is being considered at Little Waver, (Scoping) albeit this has no formal planning application. • Single turbine 48.5 metres to tip at Bromfield Farm, Bromfield.

In terms of cumulative landscape assessment, the guidance requires the consideration of pending planning applications, however in planning law, the merits of any cumulative impact must only relate to implemented or approved turbines. Pending applications including those at appeal should not be given weight.

Page 15 Turbine developments have also been approved at High Pow (3 x 95 m to tip constructed), Wharrels Hill (8 x 81m to tip contructed), Croftlands (1 x 27m), Bothel Craggs Farm (1 x 25m), Low Moor Bothel (1x 20m), Crossrigg Farm (1 x 20.4m) Stubbs Gill Farm (1 x 20.4m) and Langrigg Hall (4x 27.3m).

It is considered there to be some potential for cumulative impact in combination with the existing man made development on the visual amenities of the area and the landscape character, albeit, the significance of these effects would be affected by landform and natural screening etc.

Numerous screening opinions have been received throughout Allerdale, however these have not been considered in the cumulative assessment as they are not considered proposed development sites at this stage.

The number of existing or approved turbines of all scales within the locality is increasing. However, in considering the scale of the current proposal and the separation distances involved to other turbine developments, the magnitude of potential landscape and visual impacts cumulatively of this and other turbines, are not considered significant cumulative effects in terms of either landscape character or visual amenity to warrant refusal.

Given the proposal been only for a single turbine and the existing landscape and man made features any visual interaction would be limited.

The siting of the modest scale turbine within low level land reduces the sequential cumulative effect of turbines located along the A596. As such, the proposal is not considered to give rise to significant cumulative effects in terms of either landscape character or visual amenity.

Biodiversity

The site does not fall within any designated sites and there are no designated sites within 2km of the site.

The proposed site is closely grazed improved pasture and it is considered unlikely the have a direct impact on valuable habitat.

The turbine has been sited 50m from the nearest hedgerow.

A Desktop Bird Survey was submitted October 2012 to consider the potential impacts on birds in relation to the erection of a wind turbine to Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SSSI, SPA, SAC and Ramsar site which lies 12.5km to the north west and the non statutory designated RSPB Bird Sensitivity Area 3.5km to the

Page 16 north.

The site assessment concluded that there was low potential for a negative impact on the species assemblages of local designated sites from the proposed turbine.

Natural England has no objections to the proposed development.

Noise

ETSU–R–97 – ‘The assessment and rating of noise from wind turbines’, is the standard guidance document relating to wind turbines. This indicates that noise from wind turbines should be limited to:

5dB(A) above background noise level for both day and night time.

• In low noise environments, daytime noise levels should be limited to an absolute level within the range of 35-40dB (A). • The fixed limit for night-time is 43 dB (A). • Day and night-time levels of 45 dB (A) for any related property. • For single turbines or large separation distances, simplified limit of 35 dB (A) up to wind speeds of 10 m/s should not require background noise measurements.

The application includes a noise assessment which has been assessed by officers within Environmental Protection. No objections are raised subject to conditions that noise from the wind turbine be limited to reflect the ETSU standards. A further condition is also recommended to resolve any complaints received in relation to the turbine.

Based on this advice from Environmental Protection, the proposal is considered to be acceptable with regard to noise levels generated.

Shadow Flicker

Research suggests that shadow flicker effects have been proven to occur only within 10 rotor diameters of a turbine. With a rotor diameter of 19.2m, there is the potential for shadow flicker to occur within 192m of the proposed turbine.

Should complaints arise regarding shadow flicker there is the potential for this to be investigated as a nuisance via Environmental Protection.

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Aviation and RADAR

The CAA and the MoD have been consulted on the proposal. The

Page 17 MoD and CAA raise no objections and no conditions have been requested with regard to the proposal.

The standard response from the CAA for turbines indicates that the CAA has no responsibility for safeguarding sites other than within its own property. The scheme is considered acceptable in terms of aviation safety and radar.

Highways/Traffic Impact

The Highways Authority generally suggest a separation distance between turbines and roads or railways of the height of the turbine plus 10%, to reduce any risks from toppling or icing, (the instances of such occurrences are noted as rare).

The separation distance proposed to the highway, is well in excess of this, as such, it is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the highway or railway in an unacceptable manner in terms of safety.

The Cumbria Highways raise no objection to the proposal subject to conditions attached requiring a Construction Management Plan and Construction Method Statement for the construction phase of the development be submitted, to allow the suitability of the access roads for the volume and size of vehicles expected to access the site can be assessed.

Access and Public Rights of Way

Access to the turbine site would be via an existing access track which serves the farm. A new access track made up of crushed stone would be required for construction traffic from the farm steading.

Entry to the public highway would be via the existing junction with the B5299 which currently serves Leesrigg Farm and a few other residential properties.

The farm entrance drive also acts as a public footpath. The public rights of way officer (PRWO) have raised no objections to the proposal.

The wind turbine is outside of the fall zone for the public footpath, however as the access track will follow the alignment of the public footpath and a temporary closure would be required along the footpath.

It is considered that the proposed turbines, once in position, would not adversely affect any public right of way in an unacceptable manner in terms of safety.

Page 18

The PRWO recommends warning signage is installed stating that vehicles must give way to pedestrians at all times. It is considered this can be secured by condition to provide details of the signs and the proposed locations.

Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Geology

It is considered that adequate mitigation measures can be incorporated into any build to ensure no significant pollution to the water environment, in accordance with saved policy EN5 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration.

Impacts on Heritage Assets

There are no landscape designations within the site.

There are 5 listed buildings within 1 km of the site;

• Whitehall Grade 1 • Whitehall Coach House Grade II • Harby Brow Pele Tower, adjoining farm house and barn – Grade 1 • Church of All Saints Grade II • Church of All Hallows Grade II

There are 3 Scheduled Ancient monuments within 1 km of the site:

• Blennerhasset Roman Fort; • Harby Brow Tower, adjoining farmhouse and barn • Moated site 400m NE of Cockbridge.

Listed buildings

Whitehall (Grade 1Listed)

The turbine would be some 625m to the northwest of Whitehall and the applicant advises that there would be little inter-visibility between the two as a result of intervening vegetation and landforms.

All Hallows Church (Grade II Listed )

The church has well defined boundaries marking a clear distinction between the church cartilage and the B5299 road to the south. Agricultural and is to three other sides. Trees shield the views south towards the turbine site. When approaching the church from the west along the B5299 both the church and the turbine would be visible. Approaching from the east the turbine is likely to be obscured by trees.

Page 19

Church of All Saints (Grade II Listed)

The site comprises a disused church and its graveyard and is reached via a public footpath which has hedgerows and trees either side of it. The intervisibility between the church and the turbine is considered to be limited.

Harby Brow Tower, adjoining farm house and barn (Grade 1 and Ancient Scheduled Monument)

The Pele Tower is considered to be a handsome building in its own well defined grounds. The setting has been diminished to some extent by the provision of a relatively modern agricultural building to the north of the farm group. There are limited views of the turbine site at ground level as a result of trees that flank the footpath at this point.

A photomontage within the heritage statement shows a view of the proposed turbine from the northern most gateway which also serves as an entry to a public footpath heading north towards the turbine site. The turbine is circa 600metres away and would be seen against the backdrop of Leesrigg Farm.

Allerdale BC Conservation Officer advises that the siting of the turbine would not have a direct physical impact on the heritage assets and that the topography, trees and hedges means that the impact on setting of heritage assets for most of the year would be very limited to non existent.

It is considered that a limited impact on the setting of heritage assets would outweigh the benefits of a wind turbine; as the life of the turbine is short compared to the heritage asset (in particular the Harby Brow Tower and when considering the contribution the tower makes to public interest).

Blennerhasset Roman Fort

Blennerhasset Roman Fort is an ancient scheduled monument and includes buried remains of Blennerhasset Roman Fort, a late first century forted located on a bluff to the south of the River Ellen. Few surface remains are visible.

The site is around 300m to the south of Harby Brow and therefore around 900m from the turbine site. A field boundary splits the site into two and a block of plantation woodland is immediately next to the site. The turbine would be visible from the fort site, which is not open to the public but would be at a distance of 1km.

Moated Site 400m to NE of Cockbridge

Page 20

The ancient scheduled monument is described as earthwork remains of a medieval moat with an external bank. This may have preceded the pele and house at Whitehall to the north. The site is around 900m to the SE of the turbine site. Intervening woodland to the north across the A595 means that there would be no intervisibility between the two sites. The A595 acts as a strong physical barrier. It is considered the development would have no impact on the setting of this monument.

There are no further designated sites within 2km of the application sites with the World Heritage Site lying 7.5km northwest. Due to the distance between the turbines and the heritage assets it is considered the proposal is unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on such heritage assets.

English Heritage, the Cumbria County Archaeologist and the Allerdale BC Conservation Officer do not object to the scheme.

The current landscape setting in the vicinity is gentle rolling agricultural fields broken by blocks of woodland and hedgerow. Open vistas are restricted. The applicant sets out that the heritage assets to the predominant land use that are for agricultural purposes. The applicant has shown a map of the turbine site in relation to the heritage assets and sets out that blocks of woodland show how intervening views would be screened by trees.

The applicant considers that the introduction of a single farm scale turbine would not fundamentally alter the agricultural character of the area and the agricultural character would remain the dominant character rather than a landscape becoming a landscape dominated by turbines.

The applicant considers that all the heritage assets with the exception of the Roman Fort at Blennerhasset and the moated site to the south of the A595 have well defined marked curtilages which are not extensive. Their size, design and siting do not appear to have been designed to exert their dominion over the surrounding land; rather they have been sited for defensive advantage in terms of the forts and towers and access to the places of worship. The applicant advises the landscape shows no evidence of having been laid out as formal parkland to deliberately create a setting of the heritage assets.

There are no historic parks, or historic garden designations in the vicinity.

The applicant advises that from the turbine site none of the heritage assets described above can be seen, principally as a result of existing woodland and landform and in the case of the

Page 21 Blennerhasset Fort there are no above ground remains. Harby Brow Tower can be glimpsed through the trees.

Officers concur with these findings and therefore the proposal is not considered likely to adversely affect heritage assets to any significant degree. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in relation to policies CO18 and CO19 of the Local Plan, E38 of the Joint Structure Plan and the guidance contained within the NPPF.

Aviation

Government policy to encourage generation of electricity from renewable resources has led to a proliferation of wind turbine planning applications across the UK. It is therefore vitally important for the Airport operator to properly assess the potential effect of each development in order to safeguard the continued safety of aircraft operations.

Carlisle Airport’s assessment of the proposal revealed no objections.

Local Finance Considerations

There would be no local finance considerations associated with this development.

Conclusion

In balancing the harmful effects of the proposal, which are in the main limited to the impact on the landscape/visual amenity and cumulative impact, against the benefits arising from the promotion of renewable energy development, it is considered that the visual harm identified is outweighed by the benefits arising from the proposal. The recommendation therefore is for approval subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Approved subject to planning conditions

Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permit ted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: 001 - General Location Plan 002 - Location Plan

Page 22 003 - Heritage Assets Location Plan 004 - Block Plan E-3120-50kW Monopole Rev A - Proposed Elevation amended plan received 9 April 2013 Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

3. This permission shall remain valid for a period of 25 years from the date that electricity from the development is first connected to the grid. Within 12 months of the cessation of electricity generation at the site or the expiration of this permission, whichever is the sooner, all development shall be removed and the land restored in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any development commencing. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory long term restoration of the site, and the removal of any non essential development in the open countryside to safeguard the visual amenity of its site and surroundings in the open countryside.

4. Within 12 months of the completion of the construction works the temporary working areas around the turbines shall be reinstated in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any development commencing. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the site and surroundings in the open countryside.

5. Unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, if the turbine ceases to be operational for a continuous period of 6 months, the development hereby permitted shall, within a period of 3 months (or such longer period as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority), be removed in its entirety from the site and the site shall either be restored to its condition before the development took place, or otherwise in accordance with a scheme that shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the site and surroundings from non essential development in the open countryside.

6. Development shall not be begun until a Construction Method Statement including details of all on-site construction works, post-construction reinstatement, drainage, mitigation, and other restoration, together

Page 23 with details of their timetabling has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and shall include measures to secure: a) Formation of the construction compound and access tracks and any areas of hardstanding, earthworks and re-grading associated with the access tracks, storage and handling of topsoils/soils; b) Cleaning of site entrances and the adjacent public highway; c) Temporary site illumination measures; d) Disposal of surplus materials; e) The sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway; f) Soil storage and handling; g) Temporary and permanent parking and storage areas for construction vehicles, maintenance vehicles, equipment and component storage; h) Measures to prevent mud and debris extending onto the public highway i) Disposal of any surplus materials j) Dust management; k) Drainage arrangements for all impermeable areas and buildings, including parking areas, hardstandings, access tracks l) Post-construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas The Construction Method Statement shall be carried out as approved. Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity, and to prevent pollution of the environment in accordance with Policies EN6, EN14 and EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

7. No development shall take place until a written haul route plan and scheme for temporary works' signs has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works so approved shall be carried out prior to works commencing on site, and shall be retained until the construction phase of development has been completed. Reason: In the interests of highway safety

8. No development shall take place until a scheme for a condition survey of the public highway from the site access along the haul route prior to development commencing and after development is complete has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any necessary remedial works identified shall be made good in accordance with the

Page 24 approve d scheme. Reason: In the interests of highway safety

9. Construction of the access track and any permanent areas of hardstanding shall not commence until the colour finish of the surface materials to be used have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

10. Before construction of the control building and substation compound, details of the dimensions, appearance and external finishes of the building, the fencing and the surface of the compound shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the design of the development is sympathetic with its sensitive site and surroundings within the open countryside.

11. No development shall take place until a written scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out a protocol and methodology for dealing with the assessment of shadow flicker in the event of any complaint. The protocol and methodology shall include remedial measures to be taken to alleviate any identified occurrence of shadow flicker. Operation of the turbines shall take place in accordance with the agreed protocol and methodology. Reason: To minimise the risk of shadow flicker from the development affecting the occupiers of any residential dwellinghouses in the locality of the site.

12. No development shall take place until a written scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out a protocol and methodology for dealing with the assessment of electromagnetic interference in the event of any complaint. The protocol and methodology shall include remedial measures to be taken to alleviate any identified occurrence of electromagnetic interference. Operation of the turbines shall take place in accordance with the agreed protocol and methodology. Reason: To minimise the impact of any disturbance potential electromagnetic interference from the development

Page 25 to the aerial reception of any dwellinghouses in the locality of the application site.

13. No development shall take place until a surface water management plan covering water treatment and the means of drainage from all hard surfaces and structures within the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. For the purposes of this condition, hard surfaces include access tracks within the site, the substation compound, temporary construction and laydown areas, turbine pads and crane pads. The details to be submitted shall indicate the means of protecting groundwater, including private water supplies, and diverting surface water run-off. Reason: To protect the local water environment from any potential pollution and flooding.

14. The wind turbine hereby approved, shall operate within the following noise parameters: a) Night time noise limits (11pm-7am) - The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 43dB (A) when assessed and measured 3.5m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive use, namely "Riglees Cottage, Aspatria, Wigton, CA71BZ" (in existence at the date of this permission) or 5dB above the night time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater.

b) Day time noise limits (7am-11pm) - The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 35dB (A) when assessed and measured 3.5m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive use, namely "Riglees Cottage, Aspatria, Wigton, CA71BZ" (in existence at the date of this permission) or 5dB above the quiet day time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater.

c) Night time noise limits (11pm-7am) - The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 45dB (A) when assessed and measured 3.5m from the façade of the nearest financially involved noise sensitive use, namely "Leesrigg Farm, Mealsgate, aspatria, CA71BZ" (in existence at the date of this permission) or 5dB above the night time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater.

d) Day time noise limits (7am-11pm) - The LA90 (10

Page 26 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 45dB (A) when assessed and measured 3.5m from the façade of the nearest financially involved noise sensitive use, namely "Leesrigg Farm, Mealsgate, Aspatria, CA71BZ" (in existence at the date of this permission) or 5dB above the quiet day time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

15. In the event of a complaint being received in writing by the Local Planning Authority alleging noise nuisance at a residential property or properties incuding those specified within Condition 14 (due to the wind turbine), the wind turbine operator shall, at its expense, employ an independent consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine at the location of the complainants property. The results of the independent consultant’s assessment shall be provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority within three months of the date of notification of the complaint. If a breach of noise levels specified in Condition 14 a and b was confirmed at the complainants property in the assessment the operation of the turbine will cease until the Local Planning Authority is satisfied the turbine can operate within the noise limits specified in Condition 14 a and b. The operator of the development shall be under no obligation to follow the procedure set out in this condition where the complaint relates to a residential property more than three kilometres from the wind turbine generator. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved).

16. No development shall take place until a scheme of aviation obstruction lighting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interests of air safety.

17. The date of the first production of electricity shall be notified in writing to the Local Planning Authority within 28 days of the event occurring. Reason: To ensure that this site within open countryside is

Page 27 restored to an appropriate standard, in accordance with Policies EN25 and EN10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

Reason for Approval

The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the Development Plan, any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that there is not a demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding permission.

National Planning Policy Framework

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Policy CO13 - The setting of a Conservation Area Policy CO18 - Setting of a Listed building Policy EM17 - Renewable Energy

Policy EN6 - Location of potentially poluting development Policy EN10 - Restoration, after uses cease Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection Policy EN24 - Protecting Historic Parks and gardens Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy EN5 - Pollution Control

Proactive Statement

Application Approved Without Amendment

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any stakeholder representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 28

Notes to A PROW (public footpath) no 203001 lies adj acent to/runs Applicant: through the site, no obstruction to the footpath shall occur during, or after the completion of the site works.

Page 29 Page 30

Agenda Item 5

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2013/0140

Reference No: 2/2013/0140 Received: 26 February 2013 Proposed North East to South West extensions to existing agricultural Development: building. Resubmission to planning application 2/2012/0757. Location: Whitehead Brow Mealsgate Wigton Applicant: Mr Dennis Richardson

Drawing Numbers: DS/DR/4/13 - Design and Access Statement DS/DR/2/13 - Block Plan R43/3 - Location Plan DS/DR/3/13 - Floor Plans and Elevations

Constraints: British Coal Area

Policies: National Planning Policy Framework Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy REM6 - Agricultural development outside sensitive landscapes Policy REM7 - Design and location of agricultural buildings Policy EN25 – Protecting the open countryside

Relevant Planning 2/1997/0182 – The application was an enforcement appeal against History: the creation of a new access onto a highway. The appeal against the enforcement notice was withdrawn.

2/1997/0514 - Creation of new access onto highway – Refused due to removal of hedgerow in the open countryside with a replacement fence. In addition, there was no way of demonstrated way of safeguarding of the proposal visibility splays to the detriment of highway safety.

2/1998/0545 – Creation of a new access onto the highway – Approved. This application for the access planted a new hedgerow in the place of the fence and removed an existing hedgerow within the proposed visibility splays.

2/2011/0146 – Agricultural Shed – Approved. The building approved measured 18.28m in length x 12.25m in width x 6.15m in height to the ridge. The size and height of the building is considered to be acceptable and not excessive in scale and would be comparable to agricultural buildings on other small farming

Page 31 units.

2/2012/0757 – Erection of extension of shed – Withdrawn.

Representations: Parish Council – No Objections

Environmental Health – No objections.

Cumbria Highways – No Objections, as long as the usage of the junction does not intensify.

County Archaeology – No Objections, wish to make no further comment.

The application has been advertised on site and adjoining owners have been notified.

No representations have been received to date (13/05/2013).

Report Site

The site is an agricultural holding located to the north of Bothel on the A595. The site has an existing shed which is accessed directly off the A595. The existing building measures 18.3m in length x 12.2m in width x 5.8m in height to the ridge and have a floor area of 223m2.

Proposal

The proposal is to extend the existing agricultural building. It will be used to house the applicant’s suckler herd and store crops. The building would measure 18.3m in length x 30.6m in width x 5.8m in height to the ridge and have a floor area of 540m2. The materials would be concrete block work and fibre cement profile side cladding and a fibre cement roof; these materials are considered to be acceptable as they are common place on agricultural buildings.

Policy

The proposal would be used in connection with an existing rural business and therefore would be supported under Chapter 3 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which outlines under paragraph 28 that promoting a strong rural economy by way of economic growth in rural areas should be supported.

It is considered acceptable to continue to apply some weight to policies REM6 and REM7 of the Allerdale Local Plan because the

Page 32 purpose of the policies (to minimise the impact on the open countryside through siting and design, to protect residential amenity and to reduce risks to highway safety) are not contrary to guidance within the NPPF.

Assessment

The proposal would be built near to an existing small building within the property and adjacent to an existing access road to the dwelling; it is considered that the site of the building and his materials are well related to the existing built development.

Officers consider there to be two main planning issues. Firstly, whether there is sufficient justification given for the need for the extension of the agricultural unit at this location. Secondly, whether the proposal would intensify the use of the access and therefore lead to unacceptable harm to highway safety.

The existing shed approved under application 2/2011/0146 on the 27 April 2013 was for the erection of an agricultural shed for livestock and the storage of crops, farm machinery and as a general purpose building. Concerning the justification given for the need for this shed it was stated that ‘There are no agricultural buildings at present on the holding that could satisfy the needs of the unit, the existing shed was therefore granted permission.’ The application inferred that the agricultural holding was to serve a small agricultural holding of 3ha at the rear of the application’s property

As the result of the sites open countryside location, any agricultural development would require to demonstrate an ‘essential need’ for the scale and size of the building proposed. (Thus safeguarding the landscaping objectives, within the NPPF).

The applicant has indicated that this current extension to the shed will serve approximately 100ha (23ha owned and approximately 80 rented). In addition the applicant states that since the first shed was built in 2011 the farm has 4 more livestock and 10 more sheep. Officer’s regard that the increase in the amount of livestock does not justify the 100% increase in the size of the shed. Officers consider that this increase for an addition 14 animals is not sufficient enough to warrant justification for the essential need of the shed. Furthermore, it is considered that that the information submitted is insufficient to demonstrate an essential need for the size of the agricultural use of the shed. i.e. resulting in non- essential development.

Page 33 An appeal at Bolton Low Houses (2/2009/0511) was dismissed on the grounds that the applicant submitted insufficient information to demonstrate the essential need for the agricultural/stable building .

There were concerns whether, the proposal would intensify the use of the access and therefore lead to an, unacceptable level of harm to highway safety. The access concerned is onto the A595 outside any speed limits and on a wide bend therefore there is potential for high speed traffic traversing along the A595 at the sites access junction. Officers therefore consider it is important to evaluate any change of circumstances arising from the development and whether there will be any increase in the number of vehicles movements and also the types of vehicles E.G cattle trucks.

The applicant states that due to the shed being used for crop storage the usage of the access will be decreased as the applicant no longer needs to bring the crop round at winter to feed the cattle which are housed in the existing shed. However, officers consider that the use of the access will be potentially intensified by the additional building. It is also considered that insufficient evidence has been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate the level and type of traffic created to sufficiently demonstrate that the access will not be intensified. The applicant has been requested to provide his evidence but none have been forthcoming.

Local Finance Considerations.

Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal does not have any local finance considerations

Conclusion

Officers consider that without sufficient evidence to the contrary the usage of the access to the site will be intensified to an unacceptable level to the detriment of highway safety.

Officers consider insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate an essential need for the size of the agricultural shed proposed.

Recommendation: Refused

Conditions/ 1. The Local Planning Authority consider insufficient Reasons: evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that there will be no intensification of the number and type of vehicles associated with the proposed agricultural shed

Page 34 using the sites existing access onto the A595 to the deteriment of highway safety.

2.The Local Planning Authority consider insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate an essential need for the size of the agricultural shed proposed, resulting in non essiential development in the open countryside to the the detriment of the visual amenity of its site and surroundings in the open countryside, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies REM6 and EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Notes to Applicant:

Page 35 Page 36

Agenda Item 6

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2013/0253

Reference No: 2/2013/0253 Received: 08 April 2013 Proposed Replacement of 5 fixed pane windows to ground floor with upvc - Development: resubmission and retrospective. Location: The Criffel Inn Criffel Street Silloth Wigton Applicant: Mr David Halpin Drawing Numbers: 12047-00 - Location Plan. 12047-03C - Elevations and Details (Amended 16/05/2013).

Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 Hadrians Wall Setting,CO24 Conservation Area:,SILLOTH ASCA Area ASCA Area Adv Control Exclusion - Silloth

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO13 - The setting of a Conservation Area Policy CO2 - Design of alterations in Conservation Areas National Planning Policy Framework

Relevant Planning 2/2012/0638 – Replacement of 7 fixed panel uPVC windows – History: Approved.

Representations: Town Council – Recommend Approval.

Cumbria Highways - No Objections.

English Heritage – No Comments.

The application has been advertised in the press, on site and adjacent properties have been notified.

No representations have been received to date (09/05/2013).

Report Site The existing building is a prominent three storey building on the corner of Esk Street and Criffel in the centre of Silloth, overlooking the Green and the adjacent Church. The site is within the

Page 37 Conservation Area of Silloth.

Policy The proposal is to a residential dwelling within the Silloth Conservation Area and therefore is subject to Chapters 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). These outline the importance of good design and the positive contribution that development can make to local character.

These policies reiterate those of CO13 and CO2 of the Allerdale Local Plan. It is therefore considered acceptable to continue to apply some weight to these policies as they do not conflict with the guidance within the NPPF.

Proposal The proposal is to replace the 5 fixed pane windows to the ground floor with uPVC windows.

Assessment The application site’s original windows were timber with decorative archways which retained much character within the Conservation Area. Subsequent, replacement uPVC windows with decorative archways matching the existing timber designs were approved under application 2/2012/0638.

However, the windows that have been installed have no decorative archways and have square frame surrounds and are less appropriate with no archway details.

It is the opinion of the Authority’s Conservation Officer that the original windows that have been removed contributed much character to the conservation area due to their high quality deep wooden arches within the very large windows, and they contributed positively to the character of the conservation area.

Unfortunately despite gaining planning permission for windows which largely copied the previously wooden ones, the window company found it was unable to make such windows. As such, the windows on Criffel Street have a 10cm reveal compared to Esk Street with a 4cm reveal.

As a result, the Conservation Officer states that the currently installed (and proposed) windows, in addition to being of a less appropriate material and flat without any mouldings or depth, are positioned in the wrong place with minimal reveal, thereby making the whole ground floor facade of this large building, very flat for its scale and architectural grandeur.

However, it is noted that the current window design is similar in appearance to those shown in the supporting paragraph being in

Page 38 the property in the late 1900. Given that there is now historical evidence of a previous window design like the ones proposed, it is reasonable to state on balance the design replicates an earlier traditional design, which still preserves the character of the building or the wider conservation.

It is noted that the reveal in the earlier photos is much deeper. However, as the reveal proposed in this current application is the same for the Criffel Street windows as that approved in application 2/2012/0638 it is considered unreasonable to refuse the application based on the reveal of the windows

The applicant has submitted amended plans for the 2 Esk Street, windows to reflect the overall reveal. Although, this is seen as a retrograde step in the design it is deemed insufficient to warrant refusal.

On balance, it is for members to decide whether the windows, albeit less decorative than the predecessor windows, are acceptable in its design and extent of the reveal, given the windows design provided in the photograph.

Taking all of the above into account it is considered that the proposal does not result in a detrimental effect on the property itself and the conservation area. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable and complies with current policy.

Local financial implications None

Conclusion It is considered that Criffel Street retains much character. In the light of this, the windows design does preserve the special character or appearance of the property, or the wider Conservation Area.

The application is delegated to the Head of Development services, subject to there being no addition correspondences received after the 28 of May 2013.

Recommendation: Appoved

Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out

Page 39 solely in accordance with the following plans: 12047-00 - Location Plan 12047-03C - Elevations and Details (Amended 16/05/2013). Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3. Within two months of the date of this permission, details of the decorative details within the top windows outlined in the approved plan dated 16/05/2013 shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented within two months of the date of their approval and retained at all times thereafter. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area, in compliance with Policy CO2 of the Allerdale Local Plan, 1999 (Saved).

12047-00 - Location Plan 12047-03C - Elevations and Details (Amended 16/05/2013)

Application Approved Following Revisions

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and where appropriate negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments and solutions to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to Applicant:

Page 40 Page 41

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 42 Agenda Item 7

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0916

Reference No: 2/2012/0916 Received: 04 December 2012 Proposed Erection of a single wind turbine up to 77m to blade tip and Development: ancillary equipment Location: Land At Fox House Farm Great Broughton Maryport Applicant: Miss Fiona Milligan Infinergy Ltd Drawing Numbers: 1 - Location Plan 2 - Block Plan 4 - Visibilty Splays and Hedgerow Setback 1000900 REV 02 Figure A - Typical Elevation on a 500kw Wind Turbine E000-21-01-O Figure B - Typical Turbine Foundations Figure C - Typical Crane Hardstanding Figure D - Typical Onsite Transformer Station

Constraints: Radon Assessment British Coal Area

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN10 - Restoration, after uses cease Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy EN5 - Pollution Control Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land

National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 (NPPF) Achieving sustainable development – paragraph 14 Chapter 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change – paragraph 98 Chapter 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document July 2007 Relevant Planning SCR/2012/0017 History: SCO/2012/0005

Page 43 Representations: Parish Councils Bridekirk – Refuse with regard to cumulative visual and landscape impact. Dearham - Refuse with regard to cumulative visual and landscape impact. Broughton - Refuse with regard to cumulative visual and landscape impact. Papcastle – No reply to date Broughton Moor – Refuse with regard to cumulative visual and landscape impact.

Highway Authority – No objection subject to conditions. Carlisle Airport – No objections Arqiva – No objections Ministry of Defence – No objections Civil Aviation Authority – No objections. Standing advice NATS – Pre-application response of no objection. No reply to formal consultation. Environmental Protection – No objection subject to conditions regarding nearest noise sensitive properties. Natural England – No objections County Archaeologist – No objections Environment Agency – No objections Coal Authority – Standing advice English Heritage – No objection FORCE – Have provided a full statement of objection summarised on the following grounds. Unacceptable change to landscape character, the effects of which cannot be mitigated. The scheme would have and unacceptable cumulative impact from many viewpoints and sequentially with other wind energy development in the area. Lack of benefits of the scheme. Incompatibility with local and national planning policy. Impact upon cultural/historical assets. Understating of visual impacts on highly sensitive receptors that cannot be mitigated. Comparison with the Broughton Lodge proposals dismissed at appeal. Westnewton Action Group - Have provided a full statement of objection summarised on the following grounds. Poor justification of need/benefit. Inadequate assessment of cumulative visual and landscape impact Adverse impact upon character and appearance of the rural area outweighing any benefit. Comparison with the Broughton Lodge proposals dismissed at appeal.

The application has been advertised on site and in the local press.

Page 44 Adjoining landowners and nearby residents have been notified. Five letters of objection have been received as follows. The objections from local residents generally refers to the adverse impact of the turbine upon the landscape ecology and visual/residential amenity; both as an individual structure and cumulatively with existing turbines.

Representation has also been made on behalf of Storey Homes with specific reference to the impact of the proposed turbine on the potential development of the Derwent Forest Site. It is outlined that in accordance with the NPPF the objectives of the Derwent Forest redevelopment are to bring economic, environmental and community benefits to the area. It is claimed that such objectives will be undermined by the impact from the proposed turbine and the financial model to restore the site may become unworkable.

Report Proposed Development

This proposal seeks permission for the erection of a single wind turbine 77m high to blade tip and associated ancillary equipment on land at Fox House Farm, Great Broughton.

Policy Considerations

• 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 if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable

As the property is not located within any special landscape designations (including local) the proposal would be in compliance with Policy EN25 of the Local Plan when read in conjunction with

Page 45 the NPPF chapters 109, 110 and 115.

The objectives of Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan seek to safeguard sensitive development from pollution generating proposals which would concur with the objectives of the NPPF.

The proposal as a whole is considered to be in line with the NPPF.

Need for and Environmental Impact Assessment

The Local Planning Authority issued a screening opinion (SCR/2012/0017) concluding that the proposed development does constitute EIA development with regard to visual and landscape impact. A subsequent scoping opinion detailing the required breadth of supporting information was issued (SCO/2012/0005). An Environmental Statement has been provided and in officers’ opinion, it is considered that sufficient documentation has been provided to assess the proposal.

Needs/Benefits

The needs and benefits of the proposal are important elements in the overall planning balance. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development. Paragraph 98 of the NPPF states that applicants are not required to demonstrate overall need as small scale projects contribute significantly to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The increased development of renewable energy resources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government’s commitments on both climate change and renewable energy. Positive planning which facilitates renewable energy developments can contribute to the Government’s overall strategy on sustainability and renewable energy development, as emphasized in the Energy White Paper (2007), The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) the UK Energy Road Map (2011) and a significant number of other policies and commitments. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.

The North West Regional Spatial Strategy although recently abolished and is no longer part of the Development Plan, remains an evidence base and therefore a material policy consideration (excluding targets).

Page 46

Despite its abolish there remains the binding legal targets relating to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions within the Climate Change Act.

The Cumbria Renewable Energy and Deployment Study (August 2011) confirmed that the capacity of operational or consented renewable energy schemes within Cumbria totalled 285.36MW. This figure is not directly comparable to the RSS targets because the RSS specified electricity generation only; whilst the Cumbria Renewable Energy and Deployment Study considered renewable energy schemes for both power and heat. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy recognises the importance of both electricity and heat from renewable sources and seeks around 35% of electricity and heat to come from renewable and low carbon (non nuclear) sources by 2020. Of the overall figure deployed or consented within Cumbria, 70% is located within the district of Allerdale.

As such, the consented/installed capacity for power and heat from renewable energy development is considered to be substantial and to make a positive contribution to addressing climate change.

Whilst this scheme would make only a small contribution towards regional and national targets for the production of energy from renewable sources, it remains valuable, thus contributing to meeting the objectives of the Climate Change Act. Whilst the local economic benefits cannot be precisely quantified there would be some in terms of the economic benefits to this local farming business. Achieving the binding national targets for the proportion of energy from renewable sources and the reductions sought in greenhouse gases can only be done by an accumulation of local projects of varying scale. Thus, based solely on national performance, a need for developments of this type exists. These are material considerations that weigh significantly in the planning balance.

The Proposal

The turbine would be a three bladed with a hub height of 50m and a 27m rotor diameter giving a total height to blade tip of 77m.

The colour can be controlled by condition in order to achieve a satisfactory finish to minimise the visual appearance of the development.

Page 47 The turbine is to be set in concrete and will utilise the existing access from the public highway, concrete crane hardstanding, ancillary transformer station building and underground cabling.

Site and Surroundings

The site is within open countryside on agricultural land some 1.07 km to the north west of the host farmstead; Fox House Farm. The site is approximately 1.2 km to the south of Dearham and 3.5 km metres to the west of the smaller village of Tallentire. Other nearby villages includes Broughton Moor 1.7km to the west and Dovenby 2.3km to the east. The nearest dwelling (Linefoot Farm) apart from the host property is noted 600m to the east. The proposed turbine site is 700m from the nearest public highway to the south.

The turbine is planned within open arable fields just below the 80 metre contour. The land rises to the south and east to a summit of 240 metres beyond the village of Tallentire. The land falls to the north of the site before rising again beyond the River Ellen valley to 87 metres. Undulating countryside is noted in all other directions. With regard to the local topography the 77 metre turbine sited at the 80 metre contour will be visible from short, medium and long distance s from all directions; notwithstanding other structures, trees, landforms or severe changes in ground level that may screen the view.

The site is located within 3.1km of the Lake District National Park boundary to the south-east the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 5.5 km to the north-west.

Assessment

As EIA development, the applicant has provided a comprehensive suite of supporting information regarding all material planning considerations. This includes a Landscape and Visual Assessment which the Local Planning Authority has elected to be independently scrutinised by a qualified consultant. The planning considerations are assessed in turn as follows.

Site Selection

The applicant has selected the site by means of the analysis of technical and environmental constraints using a map based Geographical Information System (GIS) balanced against the essential requirements of access, wind speed and electrical connection. Further desk studies and surveys of local constraints and conditions have concluded the site selection.

Noise

Page 48

The nearest residential property not associated with the proposal is Linefoot Farm 600m to the east.

A noise report accompanying the application indicated that a Simplified ETSU R97 assessment was undertaken which demonstrated that predicted noise levels would be below 35dB(A) ETSU R97 Simplified Assessment criteria at wind speeds of up to 10m/s.

Environmental Protection has confirmed that they are satisfied with the information provided (amended to include cumulative noise impact) and that the proposal should be able to achieve the noise limits specified by ETSU. However in order to safeguard the amenity of the surrounding area, conditions are recommended relating to the ETSU noise limits and a complaints protocol.

A different noise rating defined by ETSU is applied to properties with a financial involvement with a turbine development. In this particular case the nearest noise sensitive property has a lower protection from noise as they are financially involved with the development.

Ecology

A detailed ecological and habitat survey has been provided by means of a field study and desk study with reference to wildlife records held at Tullie House.

The report identifies the site and surroundings as having low ecological value with the dominant habitat of arable and improved grassland with boundaries of hedgerow and scattered trees. There are no unique characteristics and the site has no recorded protected species. The site is not identified of local, regional, national or international ecological interest.

The fields and hedgerows are unlikely to hold species that would be at risk from collisions with wind turbines. There would not be a loss of significant habitat for ground nesting birds and similar habitats would be available in the area. The development is not considered to cause significant harm to ground nesting species.

The site of the turbine is located in excess of 50m from any hedgerows in order to minimise the impacts on bats.

There would be no significant loss in habitats during the constructional and operational phases of the development.

The proposal is considered to be acceptable with regards to Policy EN32 of the Local Plan and the relevant parts of the Habitats

Page 49 Directive. Officers consider that the development would not have any significant adverse affects on any protected species and the basic mitigation measures within the report can be conditioned.

Historic Environment

The area displays three grade II listed buildings within 1.2 km of the site. They are simply historic milestones. St Columba Church is the nearest listed building of any significance 2.1 km away. In this respect English Heritage has not objected.

Considering the distance and intervening topography from the proposed site it is considered that the turbine would not affect the setting of these features.

Hydrology and Hydrogeology

The supporting evidence from the applicant concludes that the surface water and subterranean drainage at the site will be little affected by the development and ancillary works during and after construction. The site is not within a flood zone .

Transport and Access

Access from the public highway is planned using the existing farm access. A 5m wide access track is required to the site. The Highway Authority has indicated they have no objections to the proposal subject to conditions relating to a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and Construction Method Statement.

Officers consider that an appropriate transport route can be achieved in order to minimise the impacts on the highway. The applicant has provided details of proposed site access and strategy including traffic movements, vehicle types, traffic routing and delivery periods. Such matters can be further conditioned.

The existing field access does not require any alteration except for 177 metres of hedgerow setback. The hedgerow is assessed by the applicant as species poor. The replacement hedgerow will be of indigenous species including hawthorn, blackthorn and dog rose. This will be enhanced with four standard hedgerow trees of oak and beech. The setback is generous as to not affect the

Page 50 visibility splays which will remain clear as a wider highway verge.

Shadow Flicker

In terms of shadow flicker, the standard assessment would be that properties within 10 rotor diameters of the turbine could potentially be affected by shadow flicker. In this case the rotor diameter is 27m therefore as there are no residential properties within 270m the affects of shadow flicker would not cause harm to surrounding properties.

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Aviation and RADAR

The CAA, NATS and the MOD have all been consulted on the proposal and have raised no objections with regards to the proposal. Conditions are requested relating to aviation lighting and notification when the turbine is erected. Subject to these conditions, the scheme is considered acceptable in terms of aviation safety and radar.

Radar and Aviation

The applicant has accounted for the potential for impact upon radar installations and aviation. Radar interference is unlikely and the scale of the turbine and its separation distance from any airfield will have no impact upon aviation activity. The appropriate organisations have been consulted with no objections received.

Landscape/Visual/Residential Impact

The focus of the application in response to the requirement for an Environmental Statement, is that of the impact upon visual amenity and landscape character including cumulative impact with existing and planned turbine development.

The applicant has provided appropriate landscape and visual impact assessments (LVIA) and supporting information. In turn the Council has commissioned a third party assessment of that information by a qualified landscape consultant.

Applicant’s LVIA The applicant has provided a collection of thematic maps to show the proposed site with regard to landscape character designations, residential properties within 1km of the site, distribution of existing and planned turbines in the area and maps illustrating zones of cumulative visibility. The mapping is supported with photomontage evidence illustrating that extent to which the turbine would be seen from certain critical vantage points and residential receptors within the locality.

Page 51 The size of proposal makes the development difficult to screen and by the very nature of the development there is likely to be some significant harmful affects on the landscape and visual amenities of the area; however, the degree of harm needs to be weighed up against the benefits arising from the proposal.

Localised Impact

The assessment of local impact considers construction impact, landscape character, views and viewers and residential amenity and designated landscapes.

Site preparation and construction will require a loss of a small area of pasture land to provide the access and concrete hard standings. There will also be the loss of two small sections of hedgerow within the field. Conversely the development will involve the ‘gapping up’ of broken hedgerows potentially improving landscape character and filtering views of the turbine. Hedgerow set-back to achieve visibility splays is also required as discussed above with minimal impact. Only short term reversible impact on the landscape is predicted.

The landscape surrounding the site is dominated by open fields, hedgerows, individual trees, small areas of woodland, individual dwellings and nearby villages. Within the Cumbria County Council landscape classification, the site lies within classification 5: Lowland, Sub Type 5a Ridge and Valley which has a moderate landscape capacity. 5a is characterised by a series of ridges and valleys that rises gently toward the limestone fringes of the Lakeland Fells.

The applicant’s LVIA has identified that there would be the potential for moderate or major localised impact on the character of the lowland landscape up to 1km from the site. This will however decline and diminish with distance with negligible landscape impact beyond 3km including adjacent character areas. It is stated that the turbine can generally be accommodated without dominating wide views.

The site would be visible from a network of public footpaths and cycle routes within the locality; both long and short term views of the turbine would be gained. Public views of the proposed turbine would be possible from along parts of the surrounding highway and footpath network, including local roads and longer views from the A595. Given the scale of the proposal, it would be visible to a varying extent becoming imperceptible with distance on surrounding public highways and rights of way.

The applicant has judged that the turbine would have a significant moderate visual impact particularly from the Allerdale Ramble

Page 52 footpath, Tallentire Hill (viewpoint with bench), Watch Hill and parts of the National Park. The magnitude of change to these views will be low but still significant due to the sensitivity of the receptors. On balance the applicant concludes that the turbine would not detract from the enjoyment of any routes when taken into context with the current land form and landscape features already present.

Visual/Residential Impact

Residents within 1 km of the site will clearly see the turbine when travelling to and from their properties with varied impact. The nearest residential properties are identified as Linefoot Farm 610m, Crooklands farm 820m group of three dwellings north east of Craika Farm 990m, New Hall Farm 1.01 km and Craika Farm 1.03km.

These private dwellings all have an amount of screening comprising seasonal growth of trees, hedgerows and changes in topography. The impact on residential amenity and change in outlook of visual amenity on all these properties has been assessed by the applicant. The siting, proximity, orientation (affecting living spaces) and natural screening have been assessed. Minor or moderate impact on these residential receptors is anticipated. The only exception is Craika Farm where the applicant has determined major impact upon this site due to the proximity of the turbine with direct open views. The applicant has suggested mitigation by means of landscape planting. In conclusion the applicant judges that the impact from the turbine will not be so overbearing or oppressive as to affect living conditions unreasonably.

'Lavender Test'

With regard to this test of visual impact upon residential amenity, the applicant has assessed each dwelling appropriately referring to the extent that the turbine would be overbearing, overwhelming or oppressive. Furthermore, in accordance with recent comments by the Planning Inspectorate regarding appeal sites elsewhere, a judgement over each dwelling as an 'attractive place to live' has been made. On both counts the applicant's LVIA has found minimal impact.

When considering the dwellings located within the nearby villages of Dearham, Dovenby and Tallentire, the distance, orientation, screening and local topography will reduce any negative impacts of the development. The LVIA judges that the distance of the turbine from any village will not significantly affect the scale and character of the rural settlements.

Page 53 Other scattered properties within the area will not be in direct line of sight of the development and considering the distance from the proposal to other dwellings in the locality the turbine is not considered to cause any significant affects on residential amenity.

Given the scale of the proposal, the location and the separation from the Solway Coast AONB and Lake District National Park, the proposal individually is not considered likely to have landscape and visual impacts sufficient to be considered of more than local importance.

Cumulative Impacts

In assessing cumulative impact, the applicant’s LVIA considers the impact of turbines seen together in combination, turbines seen one after another in succession and turbines seen sequentially when travelling through an area.

The cumulative assessment relates to existing and proposed schemes within 10km of the proposed site that equates to the criteria of the screening opinion SCR/2012/0017. . A wider study area for cumulative impact of 30km is recommended within the Supplementary Planning Guidance but only for structures exceeding 95 metres. The sites are as follows. The sites are as follows.

Wind Status Hub Rotor Blade Tip Number Distance Energy (Sept 2012) height dia height from Fox Scheme 29 (m) (m) (m) House Farm Wind Turbine West In planning 30 50 54 77 1 1.90km House Farm Tallentire Under 60 80 100 6 4.39km Hill construction Flimby Under 70 90 115 3 3.36km construction Pennygill In planning 45 44 67 1 3.81km Turbine Wellington In planning 55.6 48 79.6 1 5.77km Farm Broom Hill In planning 37 19.2 46 1 8.55km Siddick Operational 40 42 61 7 6.45km Wythegill Consented at 57 71 92.5 1 6.44km Wind appeal turbine Stainburn Operational 50 62 81 7 6.87km Voridian, Operational 80 82 121 2 6.66km Siddick Wharrels Operational 50 62 81 8 10.66km Hill Bothel Winscales Operational 45 26 71 8 7.61km 2 Winscales Operational 45 24 69 3 8.18km 1 Oldside Operational 40 42 61 9 8.43km Potato Pot In planning 60 80 100 3 10.70km Farm

Page 54

The cumulative impact assessment considers the sensitivity and value of the landscape, visual amenity and the magnitude of cumulative impact and landscape change as a result of the proposed turbine. The LVIA discusses cumulative change upon landscape character, visibility, views, designated landscapes and sequential visual impact through transport corridors. It is generally concluded that cumulative and sequential impact will be generally negligible or low on most counts with some minor or moderate impact from some viewpoints.

In considering cumulative impact the applicant has made reference regarding to the West House Farm turbine to be considered by Members at this same meeting ref 2/2012/0914. This structure is of the same height and sited within 1.9 km of the application site and in a similar landscape setting.

However no weight can be attached to pending applications and only implemented or approved turbines are national planning considerations.

On the whole the applicant claims that visual and landscape impact will be low. The assessment describes the existing area as a ‘landscape with wind energy development’. The LVIA concludes that the addition of the West House turbine would not change this description and the turbine would not cause the landscape to change to one in which wind turbines are are the defining dominant element.

Landscape Consultants (Eden Environment) response to LVIA

Landscape Effects

Eden Environment agrees with all of the applicant’s conclusions in relation to impacts on landscape character. The applicant has confused one landscape character type designation but the confusion does not affect the assessment.

Visual amenity

Eden Environment agrees with five out of the applicant’s nine viewpoint assessments. In each case where we disagree, Eden believes that the applicant has overstated the adverse visual impact.

Residential visual amenity

Eden Environment agrees with three out of the applicant’s five residential visual amenity viewpoint assessments. In one case,

Page 55 Linefoot Farm, we believe that the applicant has overstated the adverse impact; and in another case, New Hall Farm, we believe that there is remaining uncertainty as to the impact.

Cumulative effects

Eden agrees with all of the applicant’s conclusions relating to cumulative effects on landscape character.

Eden Environment agrees with the applicant’s conclusions regarding four out of the nine viewpoint assessments for cumulative impacts on visual amenity. In a further four cases Eden Environment believes that the applicant has overstated the cumulative adverse impact. In one case, at Tallentire Hill, Eden believes that the applicant has understated the adverse cumulative impact. This is related to the proposed turbine providing a mid- distance focal point visually attracting more distant turbines.

Eden Environment has been unable to come to a firm view on the quality of the applicant’s judgement of sequential cumulative effects because the applicant does not appear to have followed his own method. However, the conclusions appear to be reasonable.

Conclusions

The LVIA submitted in respect of the turbine development appears robust, comprehensive and clear. The applicant has taken account of feedback provided by the Council during pre-application consultations, and the LVIAs are based on the appropriate guidance.

Where Eden disagrees with the applicant’s conclusions it is usually where we believe that he has overstated the adverse visual impacts of the proposed scheme. There is only one part of the assessment, relating to cumulative impacts on the visual amenity of viewers from Tallentire Hill, where Eden would tend to increase the significance of the adverse effect.

Overall, Eden believes that the applicant has undertaken a robust study of landscape and visual impacts and that Allerdale Borough Council can rely on the findings from this study to inform its decision making.

Broughton Lodge (Appeal decision)

With regard to the significance of cumulative landscape impact in the vicinity reference is made to the dismissal of a recent appeal

Page 56 for three turbines at a nearby site of Broughton Lodge (ref 2/2009/0880/APP/G0908/A/11/215611). The Inspector commented as follows. ‘In this regard Broughton Lodge occupies a location where the proposed wind turbines would combine with others in the locality and tip the balance from a landscape with wind farms to a landscape with wind turbines as a defining and dominant element. This would be compounded by the height and prominence of the proposed turbines and the manner in which they would become a prominent local focus making the cumulative effects of wind farm development the more pronounced.’

The Inspector’s comments are triggered by the number and height of the Broughton Lodge turbines and their proximity to other clusters of existing turbine development contributing to cumulative and sequential development

Compared to the application site however this scheme was for three much higher turbines (total heights 125 metres). It is considered that a single turbine of a far lower height would not have the same impact redefining the character of the landscape in such a manner.

Recent Appeal Decisions

Members’ attention is brought to two appeal decisions for similar single turbines of 67 metres total height that have recently been dismissed by the Planning Inspector following refusal of planning permission by the Development Panel.

Land to East of Pennygill Road, Ewanrigg Hall Farm, Maryport Ref. 2/2012/0293 (APP/G0908/A/12/2187194)

The site for this turbine was proposed in a similar landscape 3.75 km to the west of the application site at Fox House Farm. The Planning Inspector’s conclusion is as follows.

‘Whilst the decision is finely balanced, I do not consider that these benefits are sufficient to outweigh the significant adverse impact on the landscape of introducing a wind turbine into this accessible small scale rural landscape where it would become a defining characteristic and where it would significantly extend the cumulative impact on the landscape of other existing and permitted wind turbines in adjacent areas.’

The reasoning for this dismissal of the appeal can be summarised

Page 57 from the Inspector’s report.

‘In this case I consider that the individual turbine would on its own result in only a local adverse impact on landscape character that would diminish with distance, as is usually the case with single turbines. However the proposed turbine is larger than many of the single turbine developments that are typically found on farms in the countryside and will accordingly have a proportionally wider individual impact. The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) acknowledges that the turbine has the potential not only to dominate views from footpaths within 335m, but to also to have a defining influence along footpaths at distances of between 335m and 1.35km where there are clear uninterrupted views. That influence could consequently extend to the whole gap between the two settlements and reach as far as the A596 and the nearest dwellings. I therefore consider that the introduction of a turbine of the proposed scale into this relatively small scale landscape in the gap between the two settlements would harm the rural landscape character of the whole gap. That landscape is of particular value because the footpath network provides ready access to appreciate the open green surroundings.’

Discussing the sixteen turbines forming the windfarm development of Siddick and Oldside along the coast, the Inspector comments

‘The current appeal turbine would be seen in some of the same views as these existing and proposed turbines when looking north and south along the coast and especially from the transport routes. Consequently it would extend the defining characteristic of wind farm development further north and into the open gap between the settlements.’

Assessing cumulative impact with the three existing Flimby Brow turbines, the Inspector commented

‘As the appeal turbine would be of similar form to those existing turbines there would be an inevitable visual association between the two developments when seen from such viewpoints. However as the appeal turbine would be smaller and closer to the viewer it would probably confuse the viewer into thinking that it is part of the same development as Flimby Brow but oddly detached and at a lower level. This would risk extending the influence of the Flimby Brow turbines in the landscape including by creating stronger visual links with other existing and permitted turbines on the coast. In some views this would risk the consolidation and extension of the wind farm landscape that currently borders the A596 at Seaton. I consider that this would be harmful to the landscape character of this part of Landscape Type 5a and also to the landscape character of the adjacent Type 2d through which the A596 passes.’

Page 58

This appeal decision and the Inspector’s comments clearly reflect some of the issues including size of turbine, its local landscape context relationship to settlements and other turbines of this application and the assessment of cumulative impact. However, each site must be judged on its own merits. The appeal decision does not therefore override the applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, however Members should consider the reasoning of the Planning Inspector and give it appropriate weight.

Land to the South of The Flatt Farm, Great Orton, Carlisle Ref 2/2012/0524 (APP/G0908/A/12/2187146)

The site for this turbine was proposed in a distinctly different rural landscape with regard to topography and settlement pattern distribution. The site is 30 km to the north-east of the application site at Fox House Farm. The Planning Inspector’s conclusion is as follows.

‘Whilst the decision is finely balanced, I do not consider that these conclusions are sufficient to outweigh the significant adverse cumulative impact on the landscape of introducing a further wind turbine as a piecemeal development in a location which is neither integrated with the layout and design of the existing wind farm or with another permitted turbine, nor sufficiently isolated from those developments to avoid adverse cumulative visual and landscape impacts.’

This appeal decision and the Inspector’s comments regard the siting of a turbine under very different circumstances to the application site at West House Farm and each site must be judged on its own merits. It does not therefore override the applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and the subsequent appraisal by the Council’s landscape consultant. However, Members should consider the reasoning of the Planning Inspector in reaching his decision of dismissal and give it appropriate weight.

Representations

Statutory consultees have all responded with no objections and conditions where appropriate. Twenty-two letters of objection have been received and two letters from local action groups FORCE and Westnewton Action Group. Eight letters of support have been received. Full details of all representations are at the head of the report.

Assessment

In determining the merits of the application members need to balance the renewable benefits of the scheme against any

Page 59 environmental harm. It is accepted that national planning policy supports the principle of renewable energy development and its contribution to the national energy targets. The applicant has provided a detailed environmental analysis under the ES. The majority of the environmental constraints have been addressed. The key planning constraint matter relates to the cumulative landscape and visual impact. Significant harm arises if there are any major impacts arising from the development. If significant impacts occur it is then a matter of judgement whether the degree of harm is adverse and subsequently whether the scale of any adverse impact is outweighed by any benefits. The submitted ES evidence suggests this only occurs in close proximity to the site. The turbine complies with the individual SPD capacity for this scale of development within this type of landscape. In the context of cumulative impact the scale of the impact of the development will diminish with distance, however sequential views also need consideration. The council’s independent landscape consultant largely concurs with the outcomes of the applicant’s landscape ES assessment, but declines to comment on the planning or landscape merits or outcomes of other turbine appeal decisions in the locality. Members therefore need to balance and judge the landscape evidence of the ES, against the context of the appeal decisions at Broughton Lodge, Pennygill Lane and Gt Orton and their associated grounds relating to cumulative impact. The Tallentire windfarm was allowed on the basis that the inspector concluded that the landscape remained the dominant feature, whereas the Broughton Lodge decision resulted in the turbines representing the dominant feature.

Officers are of the opinion that this is a borderline case especially given the close proximity of two of the turbine appeal sites. However on balance officers taking all the evidence into account consider that greater weight should be given to the professional evidence of the site specific landscape and visual assessment of the ES rather than generically applying broader landscape concepts within the appeal decisions. Therefore by virtue of the evidence of the landscape and visual impact, it is considered greater weight in this instance applies to the renewable energy benefits.

Recommendation

With regard to all the matters above, Planning Officer’s recommendation is as follows.

Despite the reasoning by the Planning Inspector in reaching his

Page 60 decision of dismissal of the turbine at Ewanrigg Hall Farm and Broughton lodge, it is considered of insufficient merit to outweigh the LVIA evidence.

In balancing the degree of harmful environmental effects of the proposal, which are in the main limited to cumulative visual and cumulative landscape impact against the benefits arising from the promotion of renewable energy, it is considered that in this instance, the environmental harm is outweighed by the benefits arising from the proposal.

The recommendation therefore is for APPROVAL .

Local Finance Considerations

Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal does not have any local finance considerations.

Recommendation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before Reasons: the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: 1 – Location Plan 2 – Block Plan 4 – Visibility Splays and Hedgerow Setback 1000900 REV 02 Figure A – Typical Elevation on a 500kw Wind Turbine E000-21-01-O Figure B – Typical Elevation on a 500kw Wind Turbine Figure C – Typical Crane Hard standing Figure D – Typical Onsite Transformer Station Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Page 61 open countryside to safeguard the visual amenity of its site and surroundings in the open countryside.

4. If the turbine ceases to be operational for a continuous period of 6 months, the development hereby permitted shall, within a period of 3 months (or such longer period as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority), be removed in its entirety from the site and the site shall either be restored to its condition before the development took place, or otherwise in accordance with a scheme that shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the site and surroundings from non essential development in the open countryside.

5. Within 12 months of the completion of the construction works the temporary working areas around the turbines shall be reinstated in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any development commencing. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the site and surroundings in the open countryside.

6. All buildings and other operational structures shall be removed from the contractor’s compound within 3 months of the completion of the works required by Condition [INSERT] above. Reason: To minimise the impact of any non essential development in the open countryside and to safeguard the visual amenity of the site and its surroundings.

7. Prior to the erection of any turbine details of the colour and finish shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the development of its site and surroundings in the open countryside.

8. No development shall take place until a written scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with the advice and methodologies of ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97), which shall identify noise sensitive properties in the surrounding locality and set out a protocol for the measurement and control of noise emissions from the turbines in the event of a complaint. Operation of the turbines shall take place in accordance with the agreed scheme and protocol. Reason: To minimise any potential noise disturbance from the

Page 62 development to the occupiers of any residential dwelling houses in the locality of the site.

9. The following background noise levels shall not be exceeded when the wind farm is in operation: (a) Night time noise limits – The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 43dB(A) when assessed and measured 3.5 metres from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive use namely Linefoot Farm, Dearham, Cumbria, CA15 7LD and Shephard Hall, Great Broughton, Cumbria, CA15 7LE or 5dB above the quiet day time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater. (b) Day time noise limits – The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise levels shall not exceed 40db(A) when assessed and measured 3.5 metres from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive uses use namely Linefoot Farm, Dearham, Cumbria, CA15 7LD and Shephard Hall, Great Broughton, Cumbria, CA15 7LE or 5dB above the quiet day time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater. (c) Night time noise limits – The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 43dB(A) when assessed and measured 3.5 metres from the façade of the nearest financially involved noise sensitive use namely Fox House Farm, Great Brouhgton, Cumbria, CA15 7SN or 5dB above the quiet day time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater. (d) Day time noise limits – The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise levels shall not exceed 40db(A) when assessed and measured 3.5 metres from the façade of the nearest financially involved noise sensitive use namely Fox House Farm, Great Brouhgton, Cumbria, CA15 7SN or 5dB above the quiet day time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater. Reason: To minimise any potential noise disturbance from the development to the occupiers of any residential dwelling houses in the locality of the site.

10. No development shall take place until a written scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out a protocol and methodology for dealing with the assessment of shadow flicker in the event of any complaint. The protocol and methodology shall include remedial measures to be taken to alleviate any identified occurrence of shadow flicker. Operation of the turbines shall take place in accordance with the agreed protocol and methodology.

Page 63 Reason: To minimise the risk of shadow flicker from the development affecting the occupiers of any residential dwelling houses in the locality of the site.

11. No development shall take place until a written scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out a protocol and methodology for dealing with the assessment of electromagnetic interference in the event of any complaint. The protocol and methodology shall include remedial measures to be taken to alleviate any identified occurrence of electromagnetic interference. Operation of the turbines shall take place in accordance with the agreed protocol and methodology. Reason: To minimise the impact of any disturbance potential electromagnetic interference from the development to the aerial reception of any dwelling houses in the locality of the application site.

12. No development shall take place until a written haul route plan and scheme for temporary works’ signs has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works so approved shall be carried out prior to works commencing on site, and shall be retained until the construction phase of development has been completed. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

13. No development shall take place until a scheme for a condition survey of the public highway from the site access along the haul route prior to development commencing and after development is complete has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any necessary remedial works identified shall be made good in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

14. No advertisements other than safety or information notices shall be displayed anywhere on the turbine structures and the turbine blades shall all rotate in the same direction. Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the development of its site and surroundings in the open countryside.

15. The turbines shall be erected at the following coordinates: E307259 N534295. A variation of the indicated position of any turbine shall be permitted by up to 20 metres in any direction. A plan showing the position of the turbines as built shall be submitted within one month of the First Export Date. Reason: To minimise any impact of the development from micro- siting the approved turbines on the landscape and its associated visual amenity.

Page 64 16. Prior to the commencement of development, a plan to a scale of 1:500 shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority showing the location of the temporary site compound or compounds required in connection with the construction of the development. Each plan shall indicate the location of the buildings, car parking, and boundary fencing. The plans shall describe the surfacing of each site compound and the means of drainage and dust suppression within the compound. Any fuel, oil, lubricant, paint or solvent stored on site shall be contained within bunds or double skin tanks, which must be capable of containing at least 110% of the largest capacity vessel stored therein. Thereafter any temporary site compound at the site shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. All temporary contractors’ site compounds shall be removed and the land reinstated to its former profile and condition no later than 9 months after the First Export Date. Reason: To ensure the long term restoration of the site and safeguard against non essential development in the open countryside and to prevent the pollution of the local water environment.

20. No development shall take place until a surface water management plan covering water treatment and the means of drainage from all hard surfaces and structures within the site and accesses to the local highway network has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. For the purposes of this condition, hard surfaces include access tracks within the site, the substation compound, temporary construction and laydown areas, turbine pads and crane pads. The details to be submitted shall indicate the means of protecting groundwater, including private water supplies, and diverting surface water run-off. Reason: To protect the local water environment from any potential pollution.

21. Development shall take place until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CTMP shall include details of: (a) The construction of the site access (b) Proposed accommodation works and where necessary a program for their subsequent removal and the reinstatement of street furniture and verges, where required, along the route; (c) Details of road improvement, construction specification, strengthening, maintenance and repair commitments if necessary as a consequence of the development;

Page 65 (d) Retained areas for vehicle parking, manoeuvring, loading and unloading for their specific purpose during the development; (e) The dimensions of turbines and associated components; (f) The management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway and other public rights of way/footway; (g) The scheduling and timing of movements, details of escorts for abnormal loads, temporary warning signs and banksman/escort details. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CTMP. Reason: To minimise the risk of any pollution to the local water environment.

22. Development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement including details of all on-site construction works, post construction reinstatement, drainage , mitigation, and other restoration, together with details of their timetabling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall include measures to secure: (a) Formation of the construction compound and access tracks and any areas of hard standing, earthworks and re-grading associated with the access tracks, storage and handling of topsoils/soils; (b) Cleaning of entrance sites and the adjacent public highway; (c) Temporary site illumination measures; (d) Disposals of surplus materials; (e) The sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage of deposit of any materials on the highway; (f) Soil storage and handling; (g) Temporary and permanent parking and storage areas for construction vehicles, maintenance vehicles, equipment and component storage; (h) Measures to prevent mud and debris extending onto the public highway (i) Disposal of any surplus materials (j) Dust management; (k) Drainage arrangements for all impermeable areas and buildings, including parking areas, hard standings, access tracks (l) Post construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas. The Construction Method Statement shall be carried out as approved. Reason: In the interest of visual and residential amenity, and to prevent pollution of the environment in accordance with the NPPF and Policies EN6, EN14, EN25 and EN27 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

Page 66

23. Construction work shall only take place between the hours of 07:00-19:00 hours on Monday to Friday inclusive, 07:00- 13:00 hours on Saturdays, with no such working on a Sunday or local or national public holiday. Outside these hours, construction work at the site shall be limited to emergency works and dust suppression. The receipt of any materials or equipment for the development, other than turbine blades, nacelles , and towers is not allowed outside the hours set out. Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of occupiers of dwelling houses in the locality of the site from any noise pollution relating to the development. 24. The development hereby approved shall be implemented solely in accordance with the mitigation within the Environmental Statement October 2012 Chapter 9 regarding Ecology. Reason: In the interests of the protection of wildlife in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

25. The development hereby approved shall be implemented solely in accordance with the mitigation within the Environmental Statement October 2012 Chapter 11 regarding Ecology. Reason: In the interests of the protection of wildlife in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

26. The development shall not be brought into use until visibility splays providing clear visibility of150 metres x 150 metres measured down the centre of the access road and the nearside channel line of the major road have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan (4. Visibility Splays and hedgerow Set-Back amended 14/03/2013) at the junction of the access road with the county highway. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) relating to permitted development, no structure, or object of any kind shall be erected or placed and no trees, bushes or other plants which exceed 1m in height shall be planted or be permitted to grow within the visibility splay which obstruct the visibility splays. Reason: To ensure an acceptable standard of highway access, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alteration June 2006 (Saved).

Page 67 27. The existing hedgerow shall be set -back and reinstated behind the visibility splay required in accordance with Condition 26, in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced. The hedgerow shall be reinstated during the first planting season after commencement of the development and shall be maintained at all times thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and visual amenity.

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

Notes to Applicant:

Page 68 Page 69

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 70 Agenda Item 8

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/0914

Reference No: 2/2012/0914 Received: 04 December 2012 Proposed Erection of a single wind turbine up to 77m to blade tip and Development: associated ancillary equipment Location: Land At West House Farm Dearham Maryport Applicant: Mr Kari Clouston Infinergy Ltd Drawing Numbers: 1 - Location Plan Rev 1 2 - Block Plan 3 - Site Location Map 4 - Highway Visibility Splay (amended plan received 19/3/2013) Figure A 100900 Rev 02 - Typical Elevation Figure B E000-21-01-O - Typical Turbine Foundations Figure C - Typical Crane Hardstanding Figure D - Typical Onsite Transformer Station Environmental Statement October 2012

Constraints: Radon Assessment British Coal Area

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved ) Policy EN10 - Restoration, after uses cease Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy EN5 - Pollution Control Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development Policy EN9 - Contaminated/Derelict Land

Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document July 2007

Relevant SCR/2012/0018

Page 71 Planning SCO/2012/0006 History:

Representation Parish Council s s: Bridekirk – Refuse with regard to cumulative visual and landscape impact. Dearham - Refuse with regard to cumulative visual and landscape impact. Broughton - Refuse with regard to cumulative visual and landscape impact. Papcastle – No reply to date Broughton Moor – No reply to date Highway Authority – No objection subject to conditions. Carlisle Airport – No objections Arqiva – No objections Ministry of Defence – No objections Civil Aviation Authority – No objections NATS – Pre-application response of no objection. No objection to formal consultation. Environmental Protection – No objection subject to conditions regarding nearest noise sensitive properties. Natural England – No objections County Archaeologist – No objections Environment Agency – No objections Allerdale Conservation Officer – Request for additional evidence regarding visual impact upon heritage assets. This has been provided satisfactorily by the applicant and no objection raised English Heritage - Request for additional evidence regarding visual impact upon heritage assets. This has been provided satisfactorily by the applicant and no objection raised. FORCE – Have provided a full statement of objection summarised on the following grounds. Unacceptable change to landscape character, the effects of which cannot be mitigated. The scheme would have and unacceptable cumulative impact from many viewpoints and sequentially with other wind energy development in the area. Lack of benefits of the scheme. Incompatibility with local and national planning policy. Impact upon cultural/historical assets. Understating of visual impacts on highly sensitive receptors that cannot be mitigated. Comparison with the Broughton Lodge proposals dismissed at appeal. Westnewton Action Group - Have provided a full statement of objection summarised on the following grounds. Poor justification of need/benefit. Inadequate assessment of cumulative visual and landscape impact Adverse impact upon character and appearance of the rural area outweighing any benefit.

Page 72 Comparison with the Broughton Lodge proposals dismissed at appeal.

The application has been advertised on site and in the local press. Adjoining landowners and nearby residents have been notified. Twenty- two letters of objection and ten letters of support have been received as follows.

The objections from local residents generally refer to the adverse impact of the turbine upon the landscape and visual/residential amenity both as an individual structure and cumulatively with existing turbines. Further objection has raised issues regarding impact upon aircraft flight paths, flooding, fire risk, construction safety shadow flicker and questions regarding the need and benefits of the proposal.

Derwent Forest

Report Proposed Development

This proposal seeks permission for the erection of a single wind turbine 77m high to blade tip and associated ancillary equipment on land at West House Farm, Dearham.

Policy Considerations

The NPPF states that the delivery of low carbon energy and associated infrastructure is central to the economic social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. In determining planning applications, LPA’s should: not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even

Page 73 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.

The objectives of Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan seek to safeguard sensitive development from pollution generating proposals which would concur with the objectives of the NPPF.

The proposal as a whole is considered to be in line with the NPPF.

Need for and Environmental Impact Assessment

The Local Planning Authority issued a screening opinion (SCR/2012/0018) concluding that the proposed development does constitute EIA development with regard to visual and landscape impact. A subsequent scoping opinion detailing the required breadth of supporting information was issued (SCO/2012/0006). An Environmental Statement has been provided and in officers’ opinion, it is considered that sufficient documentation has been provided to assess the proposal.

Needs/Benefits

Page 74 renewable energy development.

The North West RSS although recently abolished and is no longer part of the Development plan, remains an evidence base and therefore a material planning consideration9excluding targets)

Despite its abolition there remains the binding legal targets relating to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions within the Climate Change Act.

As such, the consented/installed capacity for power and heat from renewable energy development is considered to be substantial and to make a positive contribution to addressing climate change.

The Proposal

The turbine would be a three bladed with a hub height of 50m and a 27m rotor diameter giving a total height to blade tip of 77m.

Page 75

The colour can be controlled by condition in order to achieve a satisfactory finish to minimise the visual appearance of the development.

The turbine is to be set in concrete and requires a new vehicular access from the public highway, temporary access track, concrete crane hardstanding, ancillary transformer station building an underground cabling.

Site and Surroundings

The site is within open countryside on agricultural land some 870 metres to the east of the host farmstead; West House Farm. The site is approximately 1.5 km to the east of Dearham and 1.5 km metres to the west of the smaller village of Tallentire. The nearest dwellings apart from the host property are noted 700m and 800m to the south and north respectively. The proposed turbine site is 700m from the nearest public highway to the south.

The turbine is planned within open arable fields just below the 80 metre contour. The land rises to the east to a distant plateau summit of 223 metres beyond the village of Tallentire. The land falls to the north of the site before rising again beyond the River Ellen valley to 87 metres. Undulating countryside is noted in all other directions. With regard to the local topography the 77 metre turbine sited at the 80 metre contour will be visible from short, medium and long distances from all directions; notwithstanding other structures, trees, landforms or severe changes in ground level that may screen the view.

The site is located within 4.1km of the Lake District National Park boundary to the south-east the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 4.5 km to the north-west.

Assessment

Site Selection

Page 76 connection. Further desk studies and surveys of local constraints and conditions have concluded the site selection.

Noise

The nearest residential property not associated with the proposal is Woodside Farm 700m to the south-west. A noise report accompanying the application indicated that a Simplified ETSU R97 assessment was undertaken which demonstrated that predicted noise levels would be below 35dB(A) ETSU R97 Simplified Assessment criteria at wind speeds of up to 10m/s.

Ecology

A detailed ecological and habitat survey has been provided by means of a field study and desk study with reference to wildlife records held at Tullie House.

The report identifies the site and surroundings as having low ecological value with the dominant habitat of improved grassland with boundaries of hedgerow and scattered trees. There are no unique characteristics and the site has no recorded protected species. The site is not identified of local, regional, national or international ecological interest.

The site of the turbine is located in excess of 50m from any hedgerows in order to minimise the impacts on bats.

There would be no significant loss in habitats during the constructional and operational phases of the development. The small amount of hedgerow removal required will be replaced with

Page 77 the planting of additional trees and hedgerow species to close the existing access.

The proposal is considered to be acceptable with regards to Policy EN32 of the Local Plan and the relevant parts of the Habitats Directive. Officers consider that the development would not have any significant adverse affects on any protected species and the basic mitigation measures within the report can be conditioned.

Historic Environment

There are no recorded archaeological remains of any significance affected by the development. Historical mapping evidence shows the site to have undergone little change since 1867 with a history of intensive arable farming. No surviving historic earthworks have been identified with the nearest archaeological remains being a preserved un-surfaced track 130 metres to the east of the turbine site. The nearest recognised historic landform is of ridge and furrow in an adjacent field. In short the area is of very low archaeological value and the development will have no impact on such assets.

In contrast the area displays fourteen grade II listed buildings within 2km of the site. In this respect English Heritage has requested an additional more detailed Heritage Impact Assessment regarding these listed buildings and structures. This has been provided by the applicant. English Heritage has confirmed no objection. On balance it is officer opinion that the necessary heritage assessment has been provided and considering the distance and intervening topography from the proposed site it is considered that the turbine would not affect the setting of these buildings.

Hydrology and Hydrogeology

Transport and Access

A new vehicular access from the public highway is required adjacent to the existing farm access. The access will serve the turbine development and the farm itself. The Highway Authority has indicated they have no objections to the proposal subject to conditions relating to a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), Construction Method Statement and the permanent closure of the existing farm access. Officers consider that the new access will improve access to the farm generally and appropriate transport route can be achieved in order to minimise the impacts on the highway. The applicant has

Page 78 provided details of proposed site access and strategy including traffic movements, vehicle types, traffic routing and delivery periods. Such matters can be further conditioned The proposed access will require the necessary visibility splays available within the applicant’s ownership with some requirement for hedgerow removal. Te hedgerow is considered not to be an important hedgerow with appropriate realignment and replanting proposed.

Shadow Flicker

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Aviation and RADAR

Radar and Aviation

Landscape/Visual/Residential Impact

Applicant’s LVIA

The applicant has provided a collection of thematic maps to show

Page 79 the proposed site with regard to landscape character designations, residential properties within 1km of the site, distribution of existing and planned turbines in the area and maps illustrating zones of cumulative visibility. The mapping is supported with photomontage evidence illustrating that extent to which the turbine would be seen from certain critical vantage points and residential receptors within the locality.

The size of proposal makes the development difficult to screen and by the very nature of the development there is likely to be some significant harmful affects on the landscape and visual amenities of the area; however, the degree of harm needs to be weighed up against the benefits arising from the proposal.

Localised Impact

The assessment of local impact considers construction impact, landscape character, views and viewers and residential amenity and designated landscapes.

Site preparation and construction will require a loss of a small area of pasture land to provide the access and concrete hard-standings. The removal of a small length of hedgerow is also required. Only short term reversible impact on the landscape is predicted.

The landscape surrounding the site is dominated by open fields, hedgerows, trees, small areas of woodland, individual dwellings and nearby villages. Within the Cumbria County Council landscape classification, the site lies within classification 5: Lowland, Sub Type 5a Ridge and Valley which has a moderate landscape capacity. 5a is characterised by a series of ridges and valleys that rises gently toward the limestone fringes of the Lakeland Fells.

The applicant’s LVIA has identified that there would be the potential for moderate or major localised impact on the character of the lowland landscape up to 1km from the site. This will however decline and diminish with distance with negligible landscape impact beyond 3km. It is stated that the turbine can generally be accommodated without dominating wide views.

The applicant has judged that the turbine would have a significant

Page 80 moderate visual impact particularly from the Allerdale Ramble footpath, Tallentire Hill (viewpoint with bench), Watch Hill and parts of the National Park. The magnitude of change to these views will be low but still significant due to the sensitivity of the receptors. On balance the applicant concludes that the turbine would not detract from the enjoyment of any routes when taken into context with the current land form and landscape features already present.

Visual/Residential Impact

The nearest residential properties are identified as Woodside Farm 700m, Tollbar Cottage 740m and Low House 840m. These private dwellings all have an amount of screening comprising seasonal growth of trees and hedgerows and changes in topography. The impact on residential amenity and change in outlook of visual amenity on all three properties has been assessed by the applicant. The siting, proximity, orientation (affecting living spaces) and potential screening have been assessed and negligible or only minor impact on these residential receptors is anticipated. In short, it is considered that the turbine will be sited sufficiently distant from these properties as not to significantly reduce the amenity of the occupiers.

'Lavender Test'

Other scattered properties within the area will not be in direct line of sight of the development and considering the distance from the proposal to other dwellings in the locality the turbine is not considered to cause any significant affects on residential amenity.

Given the scale of the proposal, the location and the separation from the Solway Coast AONB and Lake District National Park, the proposal individually is not considered likely to have landscape and

Page 81 visual impacts sufficient to be considered of more than local importance.

The applicant’s LVIA has identified that there would be the potential for moderate or major localised impact on the character of the lowland landscape up to 1km from the site. This will however decline and diminish with distance with negligible landscape impact beyond 3km. It is stated that the turbine can generally be accommodated without dominating wide views.

Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative assessment relates to existing and proposed schemes within 10km of the proposed site that equates to the criteria of the screening opinion SCR/2012/0018. A wider study area for cumulative impact of 30km is recommended within the Supplementary Planning Guidance but only for structures exceeding 95 metres. The sites are as follows.

Wind Status Hub Roto Blade Numbe Distanc Energy (Sept heigh r dia Tip r e from Scheme 2012) t (m) (m) heigh West t (m) House Farm Wind Turbine Fox In 50 54 77 1 1.90km House planning30 Farm Tallentire Under 60 80 100 6 2.50km Hill constructio n Flimby Under 70 90 115 3 5.25km constructio n Pennygill In planning 45 44 67 1 5.59km Turbine Wellingto In planning 55.6 48 79.6 1 5.79km n Farm Broom In planning 37 19.2 46 1 6.90km Hill Siddick Operationa 40 42 61 7 8.34km l Wythegill Consented 57 71 92.5 1 8.34km Wind at appeal

Page 82 turbine Stainburn Operationa 50 62 81 7 8.50km l Voridian, Operationa 80 82 121 2 8.55km Siddick l Wharrels Operationa 50 62 81 8 8.76km Hill l Bothel Winscale Operationa 45 26 71 8 9.21km s 2 l Winscale Operationa 45 24 69 3 9.66km s 1 l Oldside Operationa 40 42 61 9 10.32k l m Potato In planning 60 80 100 3 12.06k Pot Farm m

In considering cumulative impact the applicant has made reference regarding to the Fox House Farm turbine to be considered by Members at this same meeting ref 2/2012/0916. This structure is of the same height and sited within 1.9 km of the application site and in a similar landscape setting.

However no weight can be attached to pending applications and only implemented and approved applications are material planning considerations.

Landscape Consultants (Eden Environment ) response to LVIA

Landscape effects Eden Environment agrees with all of the applicant’s conclusions in relation to impacts on landscape character.

Page 83 Visual amenity

Eden Environment agrees with seven out of the applicant’s nine viewpoint assessments. In each case where we disagree, Eden believes that the applicant has overstated the adverse visual impact.

Residential/Visual amenity Eden Environment agrees with all of the applicant’s three residential visual amenity viewpoint assessments, with minor reservations about the assessments for Tollbar Cottage and Low House, where the adverse impacts may be slightly higher than stated.

Cumulative effects Eden Environment agrees with all of the applicant’s conclusions relating to cumulative effects on landscape character.

Eden Environment agrees with the applicant’s conclusions regarding four out of the nine viewpoint assessments for cumulative impacts on visual amenity. In a further four cases Eden believes that the applicant has overstated the cumulative adverse impact. In one case, the recreational viewpoint from the footpath on Tallentire Hill, Eden believes that the applicant has understated the adverse cumulative impact.

Eden Environment has been unable to come to a firm view on the quality of the applicant’s judgement of sequential cumulative effects because of some ambiguity in the description of the method used. However, the conclusions appear to be reasonable

Conclusions The LVIA submitted in respect of the turbine development appears robust, comprehensive and clear. The applicant has taken account of feedback provided by the Council during pre-application consultations, and the LVIA is based on the appropriate guidance.

Where Eden Environment disagrees with the applicant’s conclusions it is usually where we believe that he has overstated the adverse visual impacts of the proposed scheme. There is only one part of the assessment, relating to cumulative impacts on the visual amenity of viewers from Tallentire Hill, where Eden would tend to increase the significance of the adverse effect. This is related to the proposed turbine providing a mid-distance focal point visually attracting more distant turbines.

Overall, Eden Environment believes that the applicant has undertaken a robust study of landscape and visual impacts and that Allerdale Borough Council can rely on the findings from this study to inform its decision making.

Broughton Lodge(appeal decision)

Page 84

With regard to the significance of cumulative landscape impact in the vicinity reference is made to the dismissal of a recent appeal for three turbines at a nearby site of Broughton Lodge (ref In this regard Broughton Lodge occupies a location where the proposed wind turbines would combine with others in the locality and tip the balance from a landscape with wind farms to a landscape with wind turbines as a defining and dominant element. This would be compounded by the height and prominence of the proposed turbines and the manner in which they would become a prominent local focus making the cumulative effects of wind farm development the more pronounced.

Recent Appeal Decisions

Land to East of Pennygill Road, Ewanrigg Hall Farm, Maryport Ref. 2/2012/0293 (APP/G0908/A/12/2187194)

The site for this turbine was proposed in a similar landscape 5.5 km to the west of the application site at West House Farm. The Planning Inspector’s conclusion is as follows.

The reasoning for this dismissal of the appeal can be summarised from the Inspector’s report.

‘In this case I consider that the individual turbine would on its own result in only a local adverse impact on landscape character that

Page 85 would diminish with distance, as is usually the case with single turbines. However the proposed turbine is larger than many of the single turbine developments that are typically found on farms in the countryside and will accordingly have a proportionally wider individual impact. The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) acknowledges that the turbine has the potential not only to dominate views from footpaths within 335m, but to also to have a defining influence along footpaths at distances of between 335m and 1.35km where there are clear uninterrupted views. That influence could consequently extend to the whole gap between the two settlements and reach as far as the A596 and the nearest dwellings. I therefore consider that the introduction of a turbine of the proposed scale into this relatively small scale landscape in the gap between the two settlements would harm the rural landscape character of the whole gap. That landscape is of particular value because the footpath network provides ready access to appreciate the open green surroundings.’

Discussing the sixteen turbines forming the windfarm development of Siddick and Oldside along the coast, the Inspector comments

Assessing cumulative impact with the three existing Flimby Brow turbines, the Inspector commented

‘As the appeal turbine would be of similar form to those existing turbines there would be an inevitable visual association between the two developments when seen from such viewpoints. However as the appeal turbine would be smaller and closer to the viewer it would probably confuse the viewer into thinking that it is part of the same development as Flimby Brow but oddly detached and at a lower level. This would risk extending the influence of the Flimby Brow turbines in the landscape including by creating stronger visual links with other existing and permitted turbines on the coast. In some views this would risk the consolidation and extension of the windfarm landscape that currently borders the A596 at Seaton. I consider that this would be harmful to the landscape character of this part of Landscape Type 5a and also to the landscape character of the adjacent Type 2d through which the A596 passes.’

This appeal decision and the Inspector’s comments clearly reflect some of the issues including size of turbine, its local landscape context, relationship to settlement and other turbines. of this application and the assessment of cumulative impact. However,

Page 86 each site must be judged on its own merits. The appeal decision does not therefore override the applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, however Members should consider the reasoning of the Planning Inspector and give it appropriate weight.

Land to the South of The Flatt Farm, Great Orton, Carlisle Ref 2/2012/0524 (APP/G0908/A/12/2187146)

The site for this turbine was proposed in a distinctly different rural landscape with regard to topography and settlement pattern distribution. The site is 30 km to the north-east of the application site at West House Farm. The Planning Inspector’s conclusion is as follows.

‘Whilst the decision is finely balanced, I do not consider that these conclusions are sufficient to outweigh the significant adverse cumulative impact on the landscape of introducing a further wind turbine as a piecemeal development in a location which is neither integrated with the layout and design of the existing windfarm or with another permitted turbine, nor sufficiently isolated from those developments to avoid adverse cumulative visual and landscape impacts.’

Representations

Assessment

In determining the merits of the application members need to balance the renewable benefits of the scheme against any environmental harm. It is accepted that national planning policy supports the principle of renewable energy development and its contribution to the national energy targets. The applicant has provided a detailed environmental analysis under

Page 87 the ES. The majority of the environmental constraints have been addressed. The key planning constraint matter relates to the cumulative landscape and visual impact. Significant harm arises if there are any major impacts arising from the development. If significant impacts occur it is then a matter of judgement whether the degree of harm is adverse and subsequently whether the scale of any adverse impact is outweighed by any benefits. The submitted ES evidence suggests this only occurs in close proximity to the site. The turbine complies with the individual SPD capacity for this scale of development within this type of landscape. In the context of cumulative impact the scale of the impact of the development will diminish with distance, however sequential views also need consideration. The councils independent landscape consultant largely concurs with the outcomes of the applicants landscape ES assessment, but declines to comment on the planning or landscape merits or outcomes of other turbine appeal decisions in the locality. Members therefore need to balance and judge the landscape evidence of the ES, against the context of the appeal decisions at Broughton Lodge, Pennygill Lane and Gt Orton and their associated grounds relating to cumulative impact. The Tallentire windfarm was allowed on the basis that the inspector concluded that the landscape remained the dominant feature, whereas the Broughton Lodge decision resulted in the turbines representing the dominant feature.

Recommendation

With regard to all the matters above, Planning Officer’s recommendation is as follows.

Despite the reasoning by the Planning Inspector in reaching his decision of dismissal of the turbine at Ewanrigg Hall Farm and Broughton lodge, it is considered of insufficient merit to outweigh the LVIA evidence.

In balancing the degree of harmful environmental effects of the proposal, which are in the main limited to cumulative visual and

Page 88 cumulative landscape impact against the benefits arising from the promotion of renewable energy, it is considered that in this instance, the environmental harm is outweighed by the benefits arising from the proposal.

The recommendation therefore is for APPROVAL .

Local Finance Considerations

Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal does not have any local finance considerations.

Recommendation: Approve

Conditi ons/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before Reasons: the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out solely in accordance with the following plans: 1 – Location Plan Rev 1 2 – Block Plan 3 – Site Location Map 4 – Highway Visibility Splays (amended plan received 19/03/2013) Figure A 100900 Rev 02 – Typical Elevation Figure B E000-21-01-O – Typical Turbine Foundations Figure C – Typical Crane Hardstanding Figure D – Typical Onsite Transformer Station Environmental Statement October 2012 Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

4. If the turbine ceases to be operational for a continuous

Page 89 period of 6 months, the development hereby permitted shall, within a period of 3 months (or such longer period as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority), be removed in its entirety from the site and the site shall either be restored to its condition before the development took place, or otherwise in accordance with a scheme that shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the site and surroundings from non essential development in the open countryside.

7. The blades of all turbine hereby permitted shall rotate in the same direction. Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the development of its site and surroundings in the open countryside.

8. Prior to the erection of any turbine details of the colour and finish shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the development of its site and surroundings in the open countryside.

9. No development shall take place until a written scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with the advice and methodologies of ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97), which shall identify noise sensitive properties in the surrounding locality and set out a protocol for the measurement and control of noise emissions from the turbines in the event of a complaint. Operation of the turbines shall take place in accordance with the agreed scheme and protocol.

Page 90 Reason: To minimise any potential noise disturbance from the development to the occupiers of any residential dwellinghouses in the locality of the site.

10. The following background noise levels shall not be exceeded when the wind farm is in operation: (a) Night time noise limits (11 p.m. to 7 a.m) – The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 43dB(A) when assessed and measured 3.5 metres from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive use namely Low House, Dearham, Cumbria, CA15 7LA above the night time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater. (b) Day time noise limits (7 a.m. to 11 p.m) – The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise levels shall not exceed 35db(A) when assessed and measured 3.5 metres from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive uses use namely Low House, Dearham, Cumbria, CA15 7LA or 5dB above the quiet day time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater. (c) Night time noise limits (11pm – 7am) – The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 45dB(A) when assessed and measured 3.5 metres from the façade of the nearest financially involved noise sensitive use namely West House, Dearham, Cumbria, CA15 7LD or 5dB above the night time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater. (d) Day time noise limits (11pm-7am) – The LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise levels shall not exceed 40db(A) when assessed and measured 3.5 metres from the façade of the nearest financially involved noise sensitive use namely West House, Dearham, Cumbria, CA15 7LD or 5dB above the quiet day time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12m/s, whichever is the greater. Reason: To minimise any potential noise disturbance from the development to the occupiers of any residential dwellinghouses in the locality of the site.

Page 91 development affecting the occupiers of any residential dwellinghouses in the locality of the site.

13. No development shall take place until a written haul route plan and scheme for temporary works’ signs has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works so approved shall be carried out prior to works commencing on site, and shall be retained until the construction phase of development has been completed. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

14. No development shall take place until a scheme for a condition survey of the public highway from the site access along the haul route prior to development commencing and after development is complete has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any necessary remedial works identified shall be made good in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

15. No advertisements other than safety or information notices shall be displayed anywhere on the turbine structures and the turbine blades shall all rotate in the same direction. Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the development of its site and surroundings in the open countryside.

16. The turbines shall be erected at the following coordinates: E309002 N535048. A variation of the indicated position of any turbine shall be permitted by up to 20 metres in any direction. A plan showing the position of the turbines as built shall be submitted within one month of the First Export Date. Reason: To minimise any impact of the development from micro- siting the approved turbines on the landscape and its associated visual amenity.

17. Prior to the commencement of development, a plan to a

Page 92 scale of 1:500 shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority showing the location of the temporary site compound or compounds required in connection with the construction of the development. Each plan shall indicate the location of the buildings, car parking, and boundary fencing. The plans shall describe the surfacing of each site compound and the means of drainage and dust suppression within the compound. Any fuel, oil, lubricant, paint or solvent stored on site shall be contained within bunds or double skin tanks, which must be capable of containing at least 110% of the largest capacity vessel stored therein. Thereafter any temporary site compound at the site shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. All temporary contractors’ site compounds shall be removed and the land reinstated to its former profile and condition no later than 9 months after the First Export Date. Reason: To ensure the long term restoration of the site and safeguard against non essential development in the open countryside and to prevent the pollution of the local water environment.

18. No development shall take place until a surface water management plan covering water treatment and the means of drainage from all hard surfaces and structures within the site and accesses to the local highway network has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. For the purposes of this condition, hard surfaces include access tracks within the site, the substation compound, temporary construction and laydown areas, turbine pads and crane pads. The details to be submitted shall indicate the means of protecting groundwater, including private water supplies, and diverting surface water run-off. Reason: To protect the local water environment from any potential pollution.

22. A wheel and chassis wash facility, which operates on a closed cycle, shall be operated throughout the construction period. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

19. D evelopment shall take place until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CTMP shall include details of: (a) The construction of the site access (b) Proposed accommodation works and where necessary a program for their subsequent removal and the reinstatement of street furniture and verges, where

Page 93 required, along the rou te; (c) Details of road improvement, construction specification, strengthening, maintenance and repair commitments if necessary as a consequence of the development; (d) Retained areas for vehicle parking, manoeuvring, loading and unloading for their specific purpose during the development; (e) The dimensions of turbines and associated components; (f) The management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway and other public rights of way/footway; (g) The scheduling and timing of movements, details of escorts for abnormal loads, temporary warning signs and banksman/escort details. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CTMP. Reason: To minimise the risk of any pollution to the local water environment.

20. Development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement including details of all on-site construction works, post construction reinstatement, drainage , mitigation, and other restoration, together with details of their timetabling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall include measures to secure: (a) Formation of the construction compound and access tracks and any areas of hardstanding, earthworks and re- grading associated with the access tracks, storage and handling of topsoils/soils; (b) Cleaning of entrance sites and the adjacent public highway; (c) Temporary site illumination measures; (d) Disposals of surplus materials; (e) The sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage of deposit of any materials on the highway; (f) Soil storage and handling; (g) Temporary and permanent parking and storage areas for construction vehicles, maintenance vehicles, equipment and component storage; (h) Measures to prevent mud and debris extending onto the public highway (i) Disposal of any surplus materials (j) Dust management; (k) Drainage arrangements for all impermeable areas and buildings, including parking areas, hardstandings, access tracks (l) post construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas. The Construction Method Statement shall be carried out as approved.

Page 94 Reason: In the interest of visual and residential amenity, and to prevent pollution of the environment in accordance with the NPPF and Policies EN6, EN14, EN25 and EN27 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

21. Construction work shall only take place between the hours of 07:00-19:00 hours on Monday to Friday inclusive, 07:00- 13:00 hours on Saturdays, with no such working on a Sunday or local or national public holiday. Outside these hours, construction work at the site shall be limited to emergency works and dust suppression. The receipt of any materials or equipment for the development, other than turbine blades, nacelles , and towers is not allowed outside the hours set out. Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of occupiers of dwellinghouses in the locality of the site from any noise pollution relating to the development.

Before the development becomes operational, the existing permanently closed and the highway crossing and boundary shall be reinstated in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise highway danger and the avoidance of doubt.

22. The development hereby approved shall be implemented solely in accordance with the mitigation within the Environmental Statement October 2012 Chapter 9 regarding Ecology. Reason: In the interests of the protection of wildlife in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

23. The development hereby approved shall be implemented solely in accordance with the mitigation within the Environmental Statement October 2012 Chapter 11 regarding Ecology. Reason: In the interests of the protection of wildlife in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan.

Proactive Statement

Notes to Applicant:

Page 95

Page 96

Page 97 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 98 Agenda Item 9

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2013/0128

Reference No: 2/2013/0128 Received: 19 February 2013 Proposed Re-use of former domestic annex serving adjoining existing Development: dwelling as separate single dwelling including garden and new parking Locatio n: Jane Croft Hunday Winscales Workington Applicant: Mr & Mrs J & C. and D & S. Bell and Carter Drawing Numbers: 001 Site Location Plan 002 Proposed Site Plan 003 Proposed Floor Plan

Constraints: British Coal Area

Policies: National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 14 Paragraph 47 Paragraph 49 Paragraph 55

1 Delivering sustainable development 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7 Requiring good design

Allerdale Local Plan 1999 (Saved ) EN25 – Protecting the open countryside

Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration June 2006 (Saved) HS4 – New housing in open countryside HS8 – Housing design HS9 – Infrastructure requirements for housing

Relevant Planning 2/2003/1010 Approve. Change of use for domestic and business History: purposes. 2/2003/1053 Approve. Erection of two storey domestic extension. 2/2005/0508 Approve. Change of use for mixed use as domestic and business purposes. Temporary consent. 2/2006/0791 Approve domestic extensions and conservatories (partial retrospective).

Page 99 2/2005/0822 Refused. Subdivision of existing dwelling to create 2 additional dwellings. 2/2011/0567 Approve. Change of use to mixed use as domestic and business purposes to park 2 vehicles connected with the business. CON1/2011/0567 Compliance with condition 7 of planning approval 2/2011/0567. Representations: Winscale Parish Council - No objections

Cumbria Highways - No objections

Environmental Health - No objections

Highways Agency - No representations received

Fire Officer - No representations received

Report Proposal

The scheme relates to part of a property that has been historically used for residential purposes. This proposal seeks to separate an annexe of a larger property so that it provides a new separate self contained dwelling using an existing shared access and dedicated garden area.

The proposal does not require any material external alterations, other than the formation of a dedicated garden area and otherwise blocking up the (perfunctory) ground floor opening that physically internally connected the annexe with the original Jane Croft house.

Site

Jane Croft is an expansive and prominent site with dedicated access provision immediately north of the A595, close to Lillyhall and to the main settlement of Workington.

The dwelling is not within a settlement but it is not remote and there is a scattering of similar farmsteads and the hamlet of Winscales nearby.

The building forms an annexe to part of an original farm house known as Jane Croft. The site now has a mixed residential and limited commercial use for the storage of commercial vehicles associated with the existing residents of Jane Croft.

Site History

The site has a complex site history including matters of

Page 100 enforcement that will be considered within the report below.

In 2003 planning permission was granted for substantial extensions to Jane Croft, a former farmstead at Winscales (2/2003/1053). The extensions were said at the time to be required to enable family to move back in with parents and provided for ground floor links with the main dwelling.

This arrangement offered some privacy for parts of the extended accommodation but at the same time reflected the intention for the development to remain a single dwelling and to be occupied as such.

It subsequently came to light that the extensions had been built and that the extended dwelling of Jane Croft was actually being unlawfully used as separate dwellings and that the premises had different elevation treatments to those approved and there were no links provided to the main house from the extended annex areas . An application to regularise this was submitted (2/2005/0822) but was refused and enforcement action was taken.

An enforcement notice following the refusal of 2/2005/0822 requested that the extended areas should not be used as separate dwellings but should be accessed from the main property as accommodation of the family members associated with the original dwelling known as Jane Croft. Failing to meet the enforcement notice, demolition was deemed to be the only alternative. As such the additional 2 annexes were required to be attached to the main dwelling house. Therefore to comply with the enforcement notice, connecting doors for the entrance into the annexes would need to be provided.

Planning application 2/2006/0791 sought to restore the property to a single large dwelling and to add further conservatories to the previously approved massing. The scheme was approved.

This current application 2/2013/0128 now seeks to lawfully establish the eastern annexe to Jane Croft as a separate dwelling house. The assessment must therefore consider the merits of the above planning/enforcement dismissed appeal decisions relating to the appeal relating to the unlawful separation of Jane Croft to provide separate dwellings; taking account of the planning policy situation today; following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF).

The original Inspector decision to dismiss the appeal associated with 2/2005/0822 factored on saved policy HS4 as saved through Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration 2006.

The proposed new dwellings would have been within the existing

Page 101 extended dwelling house (Jane Croft) and would create an L shaped group. Policy HS4 presumes against development for housing outside settlements except where required to meet agricultural/ horticulture/ forestry worker needs. None of these essential need circumstances were claimed by the applicant at the time of the appeal in 2006. Although the applicant did advise at the time that family were to live at the dwellings.

The Inspector acknowledged that the effect on the appearance of the extensions could be said to be much the same as the permitted scheme of residential extensions. The extensions were constructed and it was recognised that the only external features identifying the separate dwellings would have been the insertion of external doors. It was acknowledged that planning conditions could control future alterations or extensions. Nevertheless the Inspector considered at that time, that the longer term impact of additional dwellings would be greater than a single dwelling house, particularly from the comings and goings associated with car travel.

This current scheme subject to this planning application relates to the eastern annex (which now has been mortgaged as a separate property). It seems a separate mortgage had been gained for the eastern annex which is now the subject of this current application.

It appears Council tax has been paid for the separate annex.

The residents of the annex from the time of the above appeal are no longer residing at the annex following repossession by the mortgage company and the annex has since been sold into a new separate ownership from the residents at Jane Croft. The other annex still remains associated with Jane Croft and within the family ownership.

An area of land to the north of the property has planning permission for parking commercial vehicles associated with the owners of Jane Croft.

Policy Background

With regard to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14).

At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking

For decision-taking this means:

Page 102

• Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and, • Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless;

any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

The NPPF is wide ranging and is now a material consideration when determining planning applications and drawing up development plans, with primacy afforded for sustainable development where for example the current adopted plan is silent, out of date, or failing in particular regards, on which paragraph 49 provides that:

‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to- date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year land supply of deliverable housing sites.’

With regard to the 5 year land supply. Allerdale BC has almost met the 5 year land supply plus 20% target, nevertheless in terms of new housing outside settlements (addressed in saved Policy HS4 of the Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration 2006), weight must be also given to the fact that the property is built and the built form of the accommodation will remain primarily unchanged and that now there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and for the provision of housing unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits..

The Inspector at the time considered the site unsustainable by virtue of the uplift of the comings and goings associated with car travel at the locality; due to the site being relatively isolated. This judgement however now also needs to be weighted against the NPPF and paragraph 14.

Also with regard to the NPPF, Section 6 of the NPPF addresses the need to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes and Section 7 addresses matters of good design.

Paragraph 47 of the NPPF provides a clear thread of support for the reuse of previously developed land, and in particular the conversion of existing buildings especially where it would ‘boost significantly the supply of housing’ (paragraph 47).

Page 103 Paragraph 55 NPPF also supports development ‘where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement of the immediate setting’ Given the site is now in separate ownership, it is considered inappropriate that the building is not used and falls into disrepair and also given Jane Croft is an existing residential unit, a land use that is compatible with the residential character of the locality must be found.

With this in mind, it is Officer opinion that the use of the property for a separate residential purpose would not detract from the immediate setting, however, should no suitable use of the building be found, the option of the building falling into disrepair would detract form the immediate setting and the amenity of existing residents at the former farmstead.

Officers are mindful the annexe itself is a lawful structure but only if used as an annex to the original dwelling house. The form and design and impact on the locality of the extension (annexe 1) were considered to be acceptable from a planning point of view at the time of the planning consent for various extensions.

The location of the site is outside a settlement; and it is likely that car travel would remain the likely choice of travel mode, nevertheless, taking account of the guidance within the NPPF it is considered that more weight should now be given to the supply of housing, given this is an existing structure, whereby a residential land use is the most suitable form of development for the locality.

It is noted that the annex if used as a separate residential unit, that this would be unlawful and could be subject to enforcement action.

Council Tax

The lawful single dwelling known as Jane Croft as extended by annexes on either side has been found to have separate mortgages, as well as being separated for Council Tax purposes as Annexe 1 at Jane croft and Annexe 2 at Jane Croft (both band A), alongside the original accommodation known as Jane Croft (Band C) since June 2008.

The present owner and applicant acquired Annexe 1 following the repossession by the lender. The applicant sets out that on internal inspection it is evident the perfunctory nature of the determinative ground floor connecting door. There is strong evidence that Annexe 1 has been used as a separate dwelling house for the last 4 year, but as such subsisted in breach of a confirmed enforcement notice.

Local Finance Considerations

Page 104 Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the following local finance considerations are relevant to the consideration of the application:

There will be benefits arising from the scheme through the New Homes Bonus scheme. It is considered the New Homes Bonus is of little weight in judging the overall planning merits of the current scheme.

Conclusion

The scheme is complex with particular circumstances that have lead to the position now found. With all matters taken into careful consideration it is Officer opinion that the scheme provides a satisfactory form of development when carefully weighing up the economic, social and environmental roles of the scheme within the guidance of the NPPF.

It is considered the provision of a single new dwelling within an existing building at this particular location would not have such disproportionate environmental cost that this would outweigh the contribution to housing supply, whilst providing the most suitable and complementary use for the locality, that would be both viable and immediately deliverable.

The scheme is therefore deemed to accord with Allerdale Local Plan Policies that are consistent with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework; as set out in the above report and the scheme is recommended for approval accordingly.

Recommendation: Approved subject to planning conditions

Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun Reasons: before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: 001 Site Location Plan 002 Proposed Site Plan 003 Proposed Floor Plan Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008 (or in any Statutory Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no

Page 105 further windows, including dormer windows, or other openings shall be formed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority upon an application submitted to it. Reason: The Local Planning Authority wishes to retain control over any proposed alterations/extensions in the interests of the appearance of the site and the amenities of adjacent properties.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008 (or in any Statutory Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no garages or car ports shall be erected on the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority upon an application submitted to it. Reason: The Local Planning Authority wishes to retain control over any proposed alterations/extensions in the interests of the appearance of the site and the amenities of adjacent properties.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008 (or in any Statutory Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no buildings, structures, extensions, fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected within the curtilage of any dwelling without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority upon an application submitted to it. Reason: The Local Planning Authority wishes to retain control over any proposed alterations/extensions in the interests of the appearance of the site and the amenities of adjacent properties. Reasons for Approval

National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 14 Paragraph 47 Paragraph 49

Page 106 Paragraph 55

1 Delivering sustainable development 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7 Requiring good design

Allerdale Local Plan 1999 (Saved ) EN25 – Protecting the open countryside

Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration June 2006 (Saved) HS4 – New housing in open countryside HS8 – Housing design HS9 – Infrastructure requirements for housing

Proactive Statement

Application Approved Without Amendment

Notes to Applicant:

Page 107 Page 108

Agenda Item 10

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2012/9011

Reference No: 02/2012/9011 Received: 30 October 2012 Proposed Erection and operation of 4 wind turbines to maximum height of 99 Development: metres and associated infrastructure. New access track, widening of access gate and new control kiosk. Location: Lillyhall Landfill Site Joseph Noble Road Lillyhall Industrial Estate Workington Applicant: Mr Matthew Hayes FCC Environment

Drawing Numbers:

Constraints: British Coal Area Adv Control Exclusion - Winscales

Policies: National Planning Policy Framework

North West Regional Spatial Strategy Policy DP7 - Promote environmental quality Policy EM17 - Renewable Energy

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Policy E38 - Historic environment Policy R44 - Renewable energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs

Allerdale Local Plan Policy EM17 - Consultation on overhead lines, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO18 - Setting of a Listed building, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN10 - Restoration, after uses cease, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN24 - Protecting Historic Parks and gardens, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Page 109 Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN5 - Pollution Control, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)

Page 110 Report Introduction

The County Council has consulted this Council on a County Matter application for 4 wind turbines at the Lillyhall landfill site.

Members may recollect that this application was deferred at a previous Panel meeting to undertake a Joint site visit with the County on 11 th April. An earlier former deferral followed a challenge to the County Council as to whether they constituted the correct determining local planning authority for this renewable energy development i.e does it constitute a County matter.

Although the site itself has not been disturbed by the landfill operations the County Council’s legal and planning officers are of the opinion that the proposal constitutes a County Matter by virtue of it being sited within the red line of the application site for the landfill and its area is affected by the restoration scheme associated with the landfill operations

The Proposal

The proposal comprises 4 three bladed turbines (64m hub height, 99m tip height with a 70 m diameter rotor) sited in a line NW to SE within the northern corner of the site landfill abutting the neighbouring industrial estate.

The scheme also includes ancillary cranepads and an onsite substation kiosk The turbines would be finished in a white, grey of off white colour and each turbine would generate up to 2.3 mw depending on the final model to be chosen (cumulatively enough electricity for 5000 houses).

The application is based on the EnerconE-70 turbine. The application seeks consent for a 25 year timescale. The proposed turbines would be connected to the national grid.

Branthwaite Lane forms the northern boundary of the application site with the landfill operational site (non hazardous household, commercial and industrial wastes) from the former opencast site (both restored and active) forming the southern and western boundary land uses. The site is open in character on the upper section of a slope although a belt of young trees is sited to the south east of the site. The site has an elevated outlook over Ridgeland to the Lakeland fells to the east.

Access to the site is via a proposed 4.5m track served by an existing blocked entrance onto Brantwaite lane which is independent of the vehicular access to the landfill site.

The application has been supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment with reference to; landscape and visual impact

Page 111 assessment , noise, ecology, aviation, archaeology and cultural heritage ,traffic and transport, shadow flicker, water environment, ground conditions ,benefits, security of supply, economic impacts and reduction in landfilling.

The applicant’s have advised the initial scheme had comprised of 10 turbines.

Recent additional evidence has been submitted to the ES to address outstanding matters.

Policy

National planning guidance is generally supportive of renewable energy production. Renewable energy targets are now binding through the Climate Change Act 2008.

The National Planning Policy Framework has as two of its core principles:

• To take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it;

• Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy);

When determining planning applications for renewable energy development, 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 if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

The former RSS document has been abolished as a development Plan document but remains an evidence base and material consideration for renewable proposals.

Similarly Saved policy R44 of the Joint Structure Plan has also been abolished and therefore is no longer a material planning

Page 112 consideration.

The County Council has also produced the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document which provides guidance for this type of development...

Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan restricts development within the open countryside to that which is ‘essential’ to meet a local need. No Allerdale Borough Council policies specifically relating to renewable energy have been ‘saved’. However, the NPPF does not place a specific restriction on schemes for renewable energy within the open countryside. Such schemes will often need to be located where there is the resource and where economically feasible.

Needs/Benefits

The needs and benefits of the proposal are important elements in the overall planning balance. The NPPF now acts as the key planning policy document for determining applications and it continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.

In order to mitigate the effects of climate change, the national energy policy documents seek to achieve 20% from renewable resources by 2020.i.e binding legal targets relating to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions within the Climate Change Act.

Page 113 within Cumbria, 70% is located within the district of Allerdale.

As such, the consented/installed capacity for power and heat from renewable energy development is considered to be substantial and to make a positive contribution to addressing climate change.

Whilst this scheme would make only a small contribution towards regional and national targets for the production of energy from renewable sources, it remains valuable, thus contributing to meeting the objectives of the Climate Change Act. Whilst the local economic benefits cannot be precisely quantified there would be some in terms of the economic benefits to this local business. Achieving the binding national targets for the proportion of energy from renewable sources and the reductions sought in greenhouse gases can only be done by an accumulation of local projects of varying scale. Thus, based solely on national performance, a need for developments of this type exists. These are material considerations that weigh significantly in the planning balance.

Needs/Benefits

The NPPF outlines a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The needs and benefits of the proposal are important elements in the overall planning balance. The wider economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects at whatever scale are material considerations that should be given weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission. This is also reflected in national energy policy.

Whilst this scheme would make a relatively small contribution towards regional and national targets for the production of energy from renewable sources, it remains valuable, thus contributing to meeting the objectives of the Climate Change Act, current National Energy Policy. Whilst the local economic benefits cannot be precisely quantified there would be some in terms of construction and maintenance contracts and agricultural diversification.

Achieving the binding national targets for the proportion of energy from renewable sources and the reductions sought in greenhouse gases can only be done by an accumulation of local projects of varying scale. Thus, based solely on national performance, a need for developments of this type exists. These are material considerations that weigh significantly in the planning balance.

Page 114 The proposal indicates that the turbine could generate electricity equivalent to meeting the needs of 5000 households.

Assessment

This Council in assessing the application does not have the benefit of detailed consultation stakeholder responses especially on technical matters to the individual planning merits of the scheme and therefore seek to provide an overall general consultation response to the scheme.

As with other turbine applications the merits of this EIA scheme relates to balancing the social economic and environmental benefits against any environmental harm that may arise from the individual merits of this particular scheme.

The applicants supporting evidence refers to the current European, National, strategic and local planning policy context of the proposed scheme including the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the National Policy statement for Renewable energy Infrastructure(EN-3).

The applicant has also referred to the councils core strategy and development management documents which have been the subject of a recent consultation exercise.

The applicants ES evidence indicates the benefits of the scheme include the saving of 10,396 tonnes of CO2, 242 tonnes of SO2 and 72.5 tonnes per annum and make a significant contribution to securing reliable energy supplies to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels. The schemes multi million pound project would not generate permanent jobs but would where possible use local contractors for construction.

The turbine scheme would prevent the implementation of the existing consent for 300,000 tonnes of inert waste reducing its associated traffic generation and disturbance.

Landscape

The landscape evidence of the EIA refers to the site being within the National Character Area 7 ”West Cumbria Coastal plain” but the neighbouring Solway basin and Cumbria High Fell designations also fall within the sites 30km study area.

The turbine is located within the local landscape character area Ridge and Valley but within a 12km study area it also affects Intertidal Flat, Coastal urban fringe, , Rolling Lowland ,Urban Fringe, Valley corridors, open Moorlands, Ridges, Foothills, Rolling Fringe, Rugged /Angular slate fell, Upland Valley and High Fell

Page 115 range.

The EIA includes 21 viewpoints as part of the landscape and visual impact assessment.

The applicant accepts that the impact on the Sites Ridge and Valley landscape designation through the introduction would be perceived as new vertical elements and the movement of rotor blades would draw attention. The turbines key characteristic and prominence would have a significant effect resulting in a new “Ridge and Valley with wind turbines” landscape, plus the viewpoint from Distington also generates a new landscape sub type “Lowland Urban Fringe with wind turbines”.

The EIA states that it was considered to be prominent from the Open Moorland viewpoint but not significant enough to generate a new landscape subtype.

The applications viewpoints suggested no significant impact to the Rolling Lowland, Foothills, Solway Basin, Valley corridor and National character area Cumbria High Fells.

The EIA assessment’s of viewpoints concludes that significant impact on visual amenity would be experienced from the SE of the A596, Workington (pre existing), Pica NE of Distington, West of Branthwaite, SW from A595 near Winscales windfarm, north of Gilgarren and the public footpath SE of Gale House Farm but considers it would form a legible well spaced and balanced group of turbines. Officers also refer to an additional footpath east from Lillyhall industrial estate towards Wythmoor head farm which may also experience significant impacts.

Cumulative impact

The EIA also addresses the issue of cumulative impact.

Officers highlight that although pending applications are required to be assessed as part of any EIA landscape assessment they are not to be given any weight in refusing any application on cumulative impact. i.e. weight can only be given to existing or approved (but unimplemented turbines)

Cumulatively the EIA considers the Winscales turbines at Winscales have created a new characteristic of “prominent presence of wind turbines” resulting in the Ridge and Valley with turbines “within 3km of this windfarm and constitute a windfarm landscape within 400m of the Lillyhall site but would remain discreet from the Winscales windfarm landscape. The EIA states that at distances of 2-3km the existing Ridge and Valley with wind

Page 116 turbines from the Winscale development would extend south to Gilgarren where turbines would reinforce this key characteristic of the landscape sub type and would be significant. The EIA suggests views south towards Pica would also generate an Open Moorland with wind turbines landscape type with significant impacts between Common End towards Pica but would not affect the Open Moorland overall due to the limited extent of the cumulative effects. Cumulative impacts would also occur between High Park and Dean Moor and the eastern edge of the Urban Fringe landscape type.

In reference to other windfarms the ES considers each windfarm would give rise to a local windfarm landscape in the landscape and a localised sub type. The ES states that these would exist without any coalescence with the Lillyhall proposal due to the separation distance and therefore no significant cumulative impacts would occur and be limited.

The proposal would not adversely impact on any national designated landscape.

The ES accepts significant cumulative impacts would be experienced from; Gilgarren, Pica, High Harrington, Workington, Distington and Dean. However the ES advises that the effects on High Harrington, Distington, Workington and Dean would reinforce existing pre –existing effects from operational schemes within the area.

Sequential cumulative impacts would be experienced along the A595 in conjunction with the windfarms at Winscales and Fairfield for 1-2 km in length Significant cumulative impacts would also be experienced from a 1km length of the Cumbria coastal way and a 2km stretch of the national cycle route west of Distington.

Overall the ES concludes that whilst the Lillyhall windfarm would result in significant cumulative impacts that would largely reinforce pre –existing impacts from the Winscales and Fairfield windfarms and would be localised and therefore acceptable.

As part of the current pending application at Potato Pot the councils independent consultant in reviewing the landscape and visual impact of the scheme included “ in addition the cumulative impacts of the scheme in relation to other schemes which are currently within the planning system are likely to generate significant landscape and visual impacts within the area to the ....of the A595 which currently has few detracting elements.

The merits of including Potato Pot windfarm site as part of any cumulative impact assessment are dependent on whether or not it forms part of the baseline evidence in making this assessment i.e

Page 117 whether there is any favourable outcome to its recent appeal. If the appeal is allowed then by virtue of its scale and close proximity ( 0.8km) it will have a significant and harmful cumulative impact on its locality. If the appeal is dismissed or remains pending at the time of determination then it would not represent a material planning consideration, but any grounds for its dismissal may be relevant to the merits of the Liillyhall scheme.

A key aspect of the proposal is whether it tips the balance on the degree of harm the inspector on the Tallentire and Westnewton windfarm appeals was of the opinion that in both instances the landscape remained the dominant factor and that “despite the intensification of the line of turbines between Workington and Carlisle the landscape remains the dominant feature and still would be described as a landscape with wind farms rather than a windfarm landscape”. However officers highlight that the land to the north and south of Aspatria includes wide, open and rolling landscape which is more able to absorb the vertical elements of windfarm (This is distinctively different in character from the proposed Lillyhall site which is a more condensed landscape which will be viewed against the backdrop of the Lake District National Park.).

However the more recent appeal for 3 turbines at Broughton Lodge Appeal was dismissed with the Inspector referring to cumulative impact stating” Broughton Lodge occupies a location where the proposed wind turbines would combine with others in the locality and tip the balance from a landscape with wind turbines to a landscape with wind turbines as the defining and dominant element. “

The issues of cumulative impact and the harmful relationship of turbines to existing wind farms was highlighted in recent dismissed appeals at Pennygill lane and Gt Orton Flatts. Albeit regrettably Allerdale does not presently have the benefit of the County landscape officers professional opinion on the merits of the scheme in officers opinion it is very comparable in concept to the Broughton Lodge scheme given the sites close proximity to existing, (and indeed larger windfarm and individual turbine developments) approved schemes in the locality of the site namely; Winscales, Fairfield, Lowca, and Moorclose Farm (in addition possibly Potato Pot depending on the outcome of the appeal, especially as this application consideration at the non determination inquiry was on the grounds of its cumulative impact on landscape, the villages and individual properties).

In officers opinion the Lillyhall scheme would have a significant adverse cumulative impact on the character and visual amenity of the landscape. The appeal decision on Potato Pot is also relevant It would be

Page 118 similar to the Broughton Lodge scheme result in a landscape dominated by windfarms. The prominence and impact of the development is partially acknowledged by the developer in the revised description to new landscape types to incorporate the turbines in new landscape character descriptions.

However officer highlight that the applicant contests that the Winscales development is already a windfarm landscape.

The supporting evidence within the ES is conflicting as the applicant contests the turbines would be seen as a separate group but that the cumulative visual impact is lessened due to the current landscape character and appearance of the existing windfarms.

In officers opinion the windfarm would be seen as a separate group i.e. not an extension but would still have both local combined view and sequential impacts (especially along the A595 corridor with the existing, approved and pending wind farm developments. Therefore in officer’s opinion the proposal would in these circumstances tip the balance to create cumulatively a landscape with wind turbines as the dominant element to the detriment of the landscape character and visual amenity of its site and surroundings.

Little weight or evidence has been attached to the wider landscape impact on the national designation NCA7 of the Solway basin as the combination of the proposal with the Winscales scheme would be viewed as a group of turbines from longer distant views from the north. In addition to this similar views from NCA8 from within the LDNP.

The applicant has submitted additional visual evidence on the cumulative impact in association with the Potato Pot development which re-inforce the concerns on cumulative impact, but the weight of this matter is dependent on the outcome of the appeal...

Visual impact

The applicants ES also assesses the visual impact of the development in the context of the following sensitive visual receptors;

In relation to the impact on residential properties the ES accepts that 8 out of the 21 properties within 1km distance of the site would experience open views towards the site with the remainder experiencing oblique /screened views. However significant effects may be experienced by properties in the wider area.

The ES advises the proposal is the following distances from the nearest settlements (within 6km) ;

Page 119

Winscales - km, Gilgarran 1.5km,High Harrington 1.8km, , Workington 3km, Pica 3km, Stainburn 3.5km, Dean 4km and Bridgefoot 4.5km and Distington 2km.

Road viewpoints include the A595, A596 A66 AND A597, plus views from national designated footpaths and bridleways. In officers opinion the proposal would have harmful cumulative impacts on the local visual amenity of the site and its surroundings.

In terms of individual properties within 1km distance it is considered potential cumulative impacts in association with the Lillyhall scheme would be experienced at Wythmoor head, Wythmoor Sough, Wythmoor House, Why Close, Gale House Barn, Gale House , Managers Flat Oil’s, Cumberland Lodge , Jane croft , 1-4 Rescue cottages. Given the orientation of properties, separation distances and vegetation officers consider the main visual impacts would be harmful to Wythmoor Head, the west facing windows of Wythmoor House, managers Flat Oily’s and Cumberland lodge. It is considered these properties would encounter an overwhelming impact from the presence of the turbine to an unacceptable level, failing the Lavender test.

In addition, as part of the current pending application at Potato Pot the council’s independent consultant in reviewing the landscape and visual impact of the scheme, identified the impacts to visual amenity caused by the siting of wind turbines to the east of the A595 where open views are afforded towards the LDNP.

Noise

The applicants EIA evidence also contests the scheme complies with the guidance within ETSU-R-97 guidance.

This is not disputed by the councils Environmental Health officers who consider the submitted levels are acceptable. (Although insufficient evidence has been received by the County council on the cumulative noise impact of the proposal with other turbines in the locality i.e Potato Pot as this cumulative noise evidence was submitted within the other pending windfarm application at Potato pot Branthwaite this comparable evidence is considered insufficient to warrant refusal on these grounds..

Shadow Flicker

The submitted evidence accepts that there are 5 residential properties within ten rotor diameter distance (700m) from the turbines but as the occasions for this to occur is limited to 8-14

Page 120 hours per year the considers this is not significant. However Allerdale would recommend that the County satisfy themselves that this can be safeguarded or mitigated and safeguarded by condition.

Highways

Officers consider that given the close proximity of the site to the strategic highway network there is unlikely to be any highway objections to the details of the scheme.

Radar

It is understood that the issues relating safeguarding radar coverage have been addressed due to the reduction in the number of turbines.

Ecology

In reference to ecology, a habitat and desk top study was undertaken, with particular reference to its location within the Hen Harrier designation. It was only considered to have a minor significant impact to breeding and wintering bird population but would have substantial impact on collision risk to Gulls in the vicinity of the tipping area. However the ES makes little reference to evaluating the impact on the Hen Harrier species whose importance has in itself prompted another screening direction in the locality to constitute EIA development.

The Hen Harrier which is known in the wider area was not recorded during the bird surveys. The risk of collision with these species was therefore considered negligible the ES and site is considered of low value with moderate/minor impact. Officers given the sensitivity designation of the status of the site (albeit on the edge) question whether adequate weighting and assessment has been given to this rare species (especially given the designated status of the site) which should be verified by Natural England’s consultation response.

Heritage

The Councils Conservation Officer has raised concerns on the visual impact and dominance of the line of the four proposed turbines on the Grade 2 listed building “Wythemoor Sough and Barn“which is located approximately 0.5km to the east.

The ES evidence concludes it will have a minor significant impact on this building which will cease upon decommissioning. The combined visual dominance of the turbines on this building is increased by virtue of the siting in a concentrated group on the

Page 121 edge of the landfill site, their size and higher contour level.

This has to be balanced with the renewable energy benefits it is considered the dominating impact on the listed building is not outweighed in this instance.

Conclusion

Member’s role on this application is to assess the merits of the submitted scheme and provide Allerdale’s formal consultation response to the County Council as the determining local planning Authority for this development.

As with all turbine /windfarm applications the merits of the proposal relates to balancing the economic, social and environmental benefits of the renewable energy scheme against any environmental harm from the proposal.

In officers opinion the fundamental planning consideration relates to the weight of the impact of the development on the character and visual amenity of the landscape. Officers consider the cumulative impact of the development in association with existing, approved (but as yet unimplemented) windfarm/turbine development would have a significant adverse and detrimental cumulative (including sequential) impact on the surrounding landscape (including the backdrop of the National park).

The outcome of the Potato Pot evidence is fundamental to the merits of the scheme, as if dismissed it grounds may be relevant to the Lillyhall scheme and if allowed it contributes to the baseline on cumulative impact.

Furthermore the visual assessment evidence acknowledges the significant effects (and whilst no weight can be given to the accounting of Potato Pot scheme in the assessment) the appeal decision may be very relevant and irrespective of any cumulative impact there are individual properties that will continue to experience a significant harmful impact. It is considered the degree of this harm is not outweighed by any renewable energy benefits.

In addition officers would also recommend that additional aspects be the subject of further investigation depending on the applications stakeholder consultation responses.

Recommendation:

Refused

Page 122 1. Allerdale Borough Council consider the proposed development would be visually prominent and generate a landscape dominated by wind turbines and would in conjunction with existing wind turbine development have a significant adverse cumulative (including sequential) impact on the landscape character and visual amenity of the site and its surroundings.(this would be substancially exacerbated in the event of the Potato pot appealled being allowed ) 2. Allerdale Borough Council consider the proposal would have an overwhelming detrimental visual amenity impact on the properties of Wythmoor Head, Wythmoor House, Managers Flat Oilys and Cumberland Lodge resulting in an unacceoptable level of residential amenity.

Allerdale Borough Council also question whether sufficient and adequate evidence has been submitted within the ES to adequately address the planning considerations of the ecological impact on Hen Harriers and any shadow flicker to the residential properties generated by the proposed turbines (within 10 rotor diameter distance of the site of the turbines.)

Page 123 Notes to Applicant:

Page 124 Page 125

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 126 Agenda Item 11

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2013/0154

Reference No: 2/2013/0154 Received: 26 February 2013 Proposed Listed building consent for removal of existing timber boarded Development: fence and erection of 1.5m sandstone walls with timber boarded garden gates Location: Limes Farm Dundraw Wigton Applicant: Mr Frank Robertson

Drawing Numbers: 11/111/41A - Site Location Plan (amendment received 22 April 2013) 11/111/42A - Block Plan (amendment received 22 April 2013) 11-111-40A - Wall details (amendment received 22 April 2013) 2 - Photograph of wall as partial built Photographs of existing wall showing coping details to be installed (received 9 April 2013)

Constraints: Listed Building,II,11/2 Listed Building,II,11/1

Policies: National Planning Policy Fram ework Building a strong, competitive economy Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Requiring good design

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO15 - Alterations to Listed Buildings Policy CO18 - Setting of a Listed building

Relevant Planning 2/1991/0828 Conversion of barn into dwelling units – Approved History: 2/1991/0829 Listed Building Consent for conversion of barns into dwelling units – Approved.

ENF/2012/00016 Unauthorised erection of satellite dish on the front elevation of the property and unauthorised fence to the rear, 5 Limes Court, Dundraw.

There are other enforcement notices that relate to this development, but do not relate specifically to this application.

Page 127

Re presentations: Parish Council – No objections/approve subject to the following observation. The sandstone wall is not in keeping with the original structure and should be sandstone and coble to match the existing walls.

Cumbria Highways – No objections.

Environmental Health – No objections.

County Archaeologist – No objections.

Natural England – No objections.

English Heritage – Do not wish to comment.

Access Officer – On access issues for the disabled no objections.

The application has been advertised on site and in the local paper. Adjoining owners have been notified.

A letter has been received from a neighbouring property that states their comments do not constitute an objection, but wish the following comments to be noted.

• It should be commended that the applicant is to use local stone. However, concern is raised that at 1.5m it may be too high and would create a yard area rather than a garden. • The rear of unit 4 is a waste treatment facility/septic tank which serves all the properties. With the new wall constructed behind No 4, will there be sufficient access for servicing. • There is an error on the floor plans on how the existing farmhouse is labelled.

Report Listed Building Consent is sought for removal of existing timber fence and erection 2 x 1.5m sandstone walls with timber boarded garden gate, Limes Farm, Dundraw, Wigton.

Site

The application site lies in the village of Dundraw and forms part of a conversion scheme from barns to dwellings. The barns are Grade II Listed. Works are still ongoing on some of the units.

Unit 5 has been completed and is currently occupied.

Proposal

Page 128 There are a number of unauthorised works on the site, with Enforcement Notice ENF/2012/0016 served in relation to unit 5 for the removal of an unauthorised fence and satellite dish.

The unauthorised fence has been removed from site and replaced with a wall. The application seeks retrospective consent for the erection of 2 x 1.5m sandstone and coble walls, with the first running from the gable elevation of unit 5 to the rear boundary and the second from the rear gable of unit 4 to the rear boundary. The walls will fully enclose the garden area from the access from the courtyard. A vertical timber gate will be installed in each wall to provide access.

Policy

The applicant has submitted a Heritage Statement in line with paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to demonstrate that the proposal will not result in a significant harm to the Grade II Heritage Asset.

Assessment

The barns are all two stories in height with pitched slate roofs, rubble sandstone and cobbled walls with white timber windows and doors. The proposed walls are located to the rear of the units, through an arched access and will not be visible from the courtyard or public highway.

Officers consider the height of the wall at 1.5m is acceptable and will provide both a form of screening to allow the occupants of the dwelling privacy in their garden and is in keeping with the existing sandstone courtyard wall erected at the site.

The applicant has designed the walls to be constructed in a mixture of sandstone and cobbles to tie in with the materials used in the main buildings. A flat coping will be erected to the top of the wall to match that on the existing courtyard wall. Planning Officers and the Listed Building and Conservation Officer consider the new walls are in keeping with the character and setting of the Listed Buildings and will not result in an adverse impact on the heritage asset.

Unit 4 and the farmhouse do not form part of this application and are not included within the red line of the application, therefore the third party comments relating to these elements do not form part of the application.

Local Finance Considerations

Page 129 Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal does not have any local finance considerations.

Conclusion

The design, height and materials of the proposed walls are considered acceptable and will not result in a detrimental impact on the character of the Listed Building. The proposal complies with local and national policies.

Recommendation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out Reasons: solely in accordance with the following plans: 11/111/41A - Site Location Plan (amendment received 22 April 2013) 11/111/42A - Block Plan (amendment received 22 April 2013) 11-111-40A - Wall details (amendment received 22 April 2013) 2 - Photograph of wall as partial built Photographs of existing wall showing coping details to be installed (received 9 April 2013) Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Reasons for Approval

The decision to grant listed building consent has been taken having regard to the Development Plan, any comments from consultees (including statutory consultees) and any responses from third parties. The decision was taken having regard to relevant planning policy and it was considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the national, strategic and local plan policies, supplementary planning guidance/documents and design guidance (set out below) and when taking all other material planning considerations into account. It was considered that there is not a demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding permission.

National Planning Policy Framework Building a strong, competitive economy Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Requiring good design

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO15 - Alterations to Listed Buildings Policy CO18 - Setting of a Listed building

Proactive Statement

Page 130 The Local planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining the application and averting the potentially necessity and expediency for pursuit of enforcement proceedings. The proposal was assessed against all material planning policies and representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to None Applicant:

Page 131 Page 132

Agenda Item 12

Allerdale Borough Council

2/2013/0152

Reference No: 2/2013/0152 Received: 26 February 2013 Proposed Removal of existing timber boarded fence and erection of 1.5m Development: sandstone walls with timber boarded garden gates Location: Limes Farm Dundraw Wigton Applicant: Mr Frank Robertson

Constraints: Listed Building,II,11/2 Listed Building,II,11/1

Policies: National Planning Policy Framework Building a strong, competitive economy Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Requiring good design

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO15 - Alterations to Listed Buildings Policy CO18 - Setting of a Listed building

Relevant Planning 2/1991/0828 Conversion of barn into dwelling units – Approved History: 2/1991/0829 Listed Building Consent for conversion of barns into dwelling units – Approved.

ENF/2012/00016 Unauthorised satellite dish on the front of the property and unauthorised fence to rear – 5 Limes Court, Dundraw

There are other enforcement notices that relate to this development, but do not relate specifically to this application.

Representations: Parish Council – No objections/approve subject to the following observation. The sandstone wall is not in keeping with the original

Page 133 structure and should be sandstone and coble to match the existing walls.

Cumbria Highways – No objections.

Environmental Health – No objections.

County Archaeologist – No objections.

Natural England – No objections.

English Heritage – Do not wish to comment.

Access Officer – On access issues for the disabled no objections.

The application has been advertised on site and in the local paper. Adjoining owners have been notified.

A letter has been received from a neighbouring property that states their comments do not constitute an objection, but wish to following comments to be noted.

Report Planning Permission is sought for removal of existing timber fence and erection 2 x 1.5m sandstone walls with timber boarded garden gate, Limes Farm, Dundraw, Wigton.

Site

The application site lies in the village of Dundraw and forms part of a conversion scheme from barns to dwellings. The barns are Grade II Listed. Works are still ongoing on some of the units.

Unit 5 has been completed and is currently occupied.

Proposal

There are a number of unauthorised works on the site, with Enforcement Notice ENF/2012/0016 served in relation to unit 5 for the removal of an unauthorised fence and satellite dish.

Page 134 The unauthorised fence has been removed from site and replaced with a wall. The application seeks retrospective consent for the erection of 2 x 1.5m sandstone and coble walls, with the first running from the gable elevation of unit 5 to the rear boundary and the second from the rear gable of unit 4 to the rear boundary. The walls will fully enclose the garden area from the access from the courtyard. A vertical timber gate will be installed in each wall to provide access.

Policy

Assessment

The applicant has designed the walls to be constructed in a mixture of sandstone and cobbles to tie in with the materials used on the main buildings. A flat coping will be erected to the top of the wall to match that on the existing courtyard wall. Planning Officers and the Listed Building and Conservation Officer consider the new walls are in keeping with the character and setting of the Listed Buildings and will not result in an adverse impact on the heritage asset.

Local Finance Considerations

Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal does not have any local finance considerations.

Conclusion

Page 135 The design, height and materials of the proposed walls are considered acceptable and will not result in a detrimental impact on the character of the Listed Building. The proposal complies with local and national policies.

Recommendation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out Reasons: solely in accordance with the following plans: 11/111/41A - Site Location Plan (amendment received 22 April 2013) 11/111/42A - Block Plan (amendment received 22 April 2013) 11-111-40A - Wall details (amendment received 22 April 2013) 2 - Photograph of wall as partial built Photographs of existing wall showing coping details to be installed ) received 9 April 2013) Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Reasons for Approval

National Planning Policy Framework Building a strong, competitive economy Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Requiring good design

Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO15 - Alterations to Listed Buildings Policy CO18 - Setting of a Listed building

Proactive Statement

Page 136 The Local planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining the application and averting the potentially necessity and expediency for pursuit of enforcement proceedings. The proposal was assessed against all material planning policies and representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to None Applicant:

Page 137 Page 138

Agenda Item 13

Allerdale Borough Council Planning Department

Appeal Decisions

Appeal Reference: APP/GO908/H/12/2185808

Planning Reference: 2/2012/0602

Proposed Development: Advertisement Consent for 2 stacker board signs and 1 flag poles Appeal Site: Entrance of Scholars Green, Wigton Applicant: Persimmon Homes Type of Appeal: Written Representations

Date of Committee: Delegated Decision

Officers’ Delegated refusal on the following ground: Recommendation: The proposed advertisement(s) by reason of design, size and siting would add to the proliferation of existing signage, resulting in an undesirable clutter of advertisements which would be detrimental to the general to amenity of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Development Panel N/A Decision:

Inspector’s Decision: Dismissed appeal

Appeal decision details

The inspector considered the determining issues in the appeal are:

(i) The effects of the appeal scheme on amenity, with particular reference to the character and appearance of the street scene.

At the entrance to the Scholars Green housing estate, off Lowmoor Road, the corner properties are set beck from the junction beyond a landscaped area, which includes relatively mature trees and low hedging close to the back of the footway. This planting softens the visual impact of the dwellings that are close to the entrance of the estate.

Page 139 A large stackerboard sign has been erected on the eastern side of the entrance. The stackerboard sign is flanked on each side by a flag pole flying a Persimmon flag. These advertisements dominate the eastern side of the entrance to Scholars Green.

The appeal scheme comprises a stackerboard sign and an adjacent flag pole with flag, which are positioned on the western side of the entrance to Scholars Green, between the back edge of the footway and the landscape planting in front of No. 1. Consent is sought for these advertisements until 10 April 2015.

The components of the appeal scheme are similar in scale to those on the eastern side of the entrance. The advertisement’s comprises materials of reasonable quality and appear well maintained. Furthermore, the predominant green colouring is in keeping with the landscaped backdrop. However, when approaching the junction from the east along Lowmoor Road and at the entrance of Scholars Green the advertisements on both sides of the entrance can be seen together. Cumulatively they have an unduly dominant appearance, narrowing and hardening the appearance of the entrance to the estate, which appears cluttered with advertisements. When the entrance is seen from vantage points to the west along Lowmoor Road the visual impact of the appeal scheme is limited by intervening planting. Nevertheless, I conclude overall that the appeal scheme cause unacceptable harm to amenity, with particular reference to the character and appearance of the street scene.

Conclusion

For the reasons given above, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.

Officer comments on the appeal decision

The planning inspector agrees with the Planning Officers that the addition of further signage to the western entrance of Scholars Green off Lowmoor Road would be viewed together with the existing signage to the east of the entrance, resulting in a cluttered appearance to the detriment to the amenity of the area.

Page 140