to
24 January 2014
Development Panel Will meet on Tuesday 4 February 2014 at 1.00 pm in Council Chamber - Allerdale House
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 George Kemp Councillor Peter Kendall Councillor Jim Lister Councillor Billy Miskelly Councillor Ron Munby 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 contact Paula McKenzie on 01900 702557.
Agenda
1. Minutes (Pages 1 - 14)
To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 14 January 2014.
2. Apologies for absence
3. Declaration 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.
4. Questions
To answer questions from members of the public – 2 days notice of which must have been given in writing or by electronic mail.
5. Development Panel - 2.2013.0037 - Proposed 2 wind turbines - Snowhill Farm, Caldbeck, Wigton (Pages 15 - 36)
6. Development Panel - 2.2013.0812 - Conversion of 2 barns into dwellings and demolision building (Pages 37 - 46)
7. Development Panel - 2.2013.0848 - Change of use from A1 retail to A5 hot food takeaway - 56 King Street, Aspatria, Wigton (Pages 47 - 56)
8. Appeal Decision - 2.2011.0973 - Wind turbine - Brayton P ark, Brayton, Aspatria, Wigton (Pages 57 - 58)
9. Appeal Decision - 2.2012.0488 - Wind turbine - Land off Charity Lane, High Harrington, Workington (Pages 59 - 60)
10. Appeal Decision - 2.2012.0706 - Wind turbine - Clea Mire, We stward, Wigton (Pages 61 - 62)
11. Appeal Decision - 2.2012.0753 - Wind turbine - Firs Farm, Crookdake (Pages 63 - 64)
12. Appeal Decision - 2.2012.0315 - Wind turbine - Land to the west of Goose Green Farm, Crookdake, Aspatria (Pages 65 - 68)
13. Appeal Decision - 2.2012.0682 - Wind Turbine - Land adjoining airfield, Wiggonby, Wigton (Pages 69 - 72)
14. Appeal Decision - 2.2012.0838 - 8 dwellings including 2 affordable dwellings - Shawbank Brow, Dean, Workington (Pages 73 - 74)
15. Appeal Decision - 2.2012.0603 - Wind turbine - Land to east of Prospect House, High Scales (Pages 75 - 80)
16. Appeal Decision - 2.2013.0245 - Residential Development - Land adjacent to Cockermouth RUFC Lorton Road, Cockermouth (Pages 81 - 84)
Corporate Director Resources
Date of next meeting Tuesday 25 February 2014 at 1.00 pm Council Chamber - Allerdale House
Agenda Item 1
At a meeting of the Development Panel held in Council Chamber - Allerdale House on Tuesday 14 January 2014 at 1.00 pm
Members
P Bales (Chairman)
J Armstrong W H Jefferson C M Armstrong P G Kendall N Cockburn J Lister L Davies B Miskelly B Finlay R Munby C Garrard J Wright
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors B Bacon, J Holliday, C M Jackson, G Kemp, S Standage, C Tibble and M G Wood.
Staff Present
T Gear, S Long and P McKenzie.
400 Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 17 December 2013 were signed as a correct record subject to;
Councillor N Cockburns declaration of Interest being changed to an Other Registrable Interest instead of a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest.
401 Declaration of Interest
None received.
402 Questions
None received.
403 Public participation
The following objectors/applicants addressed the Panel.
Ashley Tiffen outlined his objections to application 2/2013/0814. The agent Kate Bellwood exercised her right of reply.
Therese Mellish and Michael Chappell outlined their objections to application 2/2013/0705. The applicant and agent Malcolm Dockeray and Tristan Mackie exercised their right of reply.
404 Development Panel - 2.2013.0778 - Erection of Fence, Retrospective - Seafield House, 7 Pine Terrace, Silloth
Page 1 The application: Erection of fence (Retrospective), Seafield House, 7 Pine Terrace, Silloth, Wigton.
The Principal Planning Officer recommended refusal.
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report.
Members were advised of 2 letters of objection.
Councillor W Jefferson moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor N Cockburn.
Councillor P Kendall moved deferral for a site visit. This was not seconded therefore the motion was lost.
A vote was taken, 11 in favour of refusal, 1 against and 0 abstentions.
The motion in favour of refusal was carried.
The decision: Refused.
Reasons:
1. The fence, by virtue of its design, materials, and prominent location, constitutes an unacceptable modern and alien feature within the streetscene to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality, failing to preserve or enhance the character of the Silloth Conservation Area, contrary to Chapter 12 of the NPPF, saved Policies CO2 and CO13 of the Allerdale Local Plan and emerging Policy S4 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).
Proactive Statement
The Local Planning Authority had 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 were so fundamental to the proposal that it had not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which had been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval had not been possible.
405 Development Panel - 2.2013.0418 - Erection of 42 Units- Former Huntingtons Garage Site, South End, Wigton
The application: Erection of 33 units for residents over 55 and adults with disabilities or sensory impairment and 9 units for adults with learning disabilities (including demolition), South End Garage, South End, Wigton.
Page 2 The Principal Planning Officer recommended approval.
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report.
Members were advised of 1 letter of support.
The Principal Planning Officer also informed members of Wigton Town Council’s response, stating no objections but that they would like to see the amendment acted upon, that appeared on the late list.
Councillor J Armstrong moved approval. This was seconded by Councillor P Kendall.
A vote was taken, 12 in favour of approval, 0 against and 0 abstentions.
The motion in favour of approval was carried.
The decision: Approved.
Conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun 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 solely in accordance with the following plans: 12-49-P01 - Site Location Plan 12-49-F11 - Site Layout 12-49-F12 - First Floor Plan 12-49-F14 - Elevations 12-49-P07 - Outbuildings 12-49-F13 - Images of proposed site 12049-P06 - Sectional Drawing Section 9 of the application form - materials Bat Survey Report dated 19 June 2012 Phase 1 Extended Habitat Survey Report dated September 2012 Tree Survey Report dated October 2012 Email received 4 December 2013. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
3. Prior to the commencement of development, details for how foul and surface water shall be drained on a separate system (including measures to prevent surface water discharging onto or off the highway) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of any of the dwellinghouses hereby approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of surface water and foul drainage, minimise the risk of flooding and in the interest of highway safety, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN14 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).
Page 3
4. Notwithstanding any indication on the approved plans, no development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of surface water, which must be based on sustainable drainage principles and in line with the hierarchy outlined in Building Regulation H3, is submitted, with supporting evidence from site investigations, to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If supporting evidence proves that the most sustainable way to dispose of surface water is by draining to the public sewer, surface water must be restricted to a maximum pass forward flow of 5 l/s. The development shall be completed, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of surface water drainage and minimise the risk of flooding, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN14 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).
5. No development shall take place until a Construction and Demolition Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include the following: (a) Traffic Management Plan to include all traffic associated with the development, including the parking and turning facilities and off-street compound staff traffic; (b) Procedure to monitor and mitigate noise and vibration from the construction and demolition and to monitor any properties at risk of damage from vibration, as well as taking into account noise from vehicles, deliveries. All measurements should make reference to BS7445. (c) Mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts on residential properties from construction compounds including visual impact, noise, and light pollution. (d) Mitigation measures to ensure that no harm is caused to protected species during construction. (e) A written procedure for dealing with complaints regarding the construction or demolition; (f) Measures to control the emissions of dust and dirt during construction and demolition; (g) Programme of work for Demolition and Construction phase; (h) Hours of working and deliveries; (i) Details of lighting to be used on site. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the duration of the development. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Pre-Draft Submission, May 2013.
6. No development approved by this permission shall commence until all necessary site investigation works within the site boundary have
Page 4 been carried out to establish the degree and nature of the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. The scope of works for the site investigations should be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to their commencement. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved).
7. Should land affected by contamination be identified under the desk top study under condition 6 is found which poses unacceptable risks to human health, controlled waters or the wider environment, no development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be undertaken including the verification plan. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved).
8. Should a contamination remediation scheme be required under condition 7, the approved strategy shall be implemented and a verification report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved).
9. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development on the part of the site affected must be halted and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall be implemented prior to the development (or relevant phase of development) being brought into use. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with current UK guidance, particularly CLR11. Reason: To minimise any risk arising from any possible contamination from the development to the local environment in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy EN9 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Saved).
Page 5 10. No development approved by this planning permission or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority: 1). A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: All previous uses; Potential contaminants associated with those uses; A conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors; Potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. 2). A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3). The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 4). A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To protect controlled waters, in particular the underlying aquifer and nearby surface watercourses.
11. No occupation of any part of the permitted development shall take place until a verification report demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy under condition 10 and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a "long-term monitoring and maintenance plan") for longer- term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved. Reasons: To protect controlled waters, in particular the underlying aquifer and nearby surface watercourses.
12. No development shall commence within the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The written scheme of investigation will include the following components: a) An archaeological evaluation; b) An archaeological recording programme, the scope of which will
Page 6 be dependent upon the results of the evaluation. c) Where appropriate, a post-excavation assessment and analysis, preparation of a site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Local Planning Authority, completion of archive report, and submission of the results for publication in a suitable journal. Reason: To afford reasonable opportunity for an examination to be made to determine the existence of any remains of archaeological interest within the site and for the preservation, examination or recording of such remains.
13. Details of the proposed crossings of the highway verge (and/or footway) and reinstatement of the existing dropped kerb crossings, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall not be commenced until the details have been approved and the crossings have been controlled. Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of crossing for pedestrian safety.
14. The access drive shall be surfaced in bituminous or cement bound materials, or otherwise bound, and shall be constructed and completed before the development is occupied/brought into use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
15. The buildings shall not be occupied until the access and parking requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. Any such access and or parking provision shall be retained and be capable of use when the development is completed and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that proper access and parking provision is made and retained for use in relation to the development.
16. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure/screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such walls/fences etc shall be constructed prior to the approved building being brought into use/occupied. All means of enclosure so constructed shall be retained and no part thereof shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area and protect the privacy of occupiers.
17. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of hard and soft landscaping which shall include indications of all existing and shrubs on the site, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for the protection in the course of development. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised within the scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season following completion of the development and any
Page 7 trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with other similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development and minimise the impact of the development in the locality.
18. The existing hedgerows within the site shall be retained when the development hereby approved is implemented. Precautions shall be taken to prevent damage to the hedgerow, any damage caused shall be made good. The hedgerow shall be retained after implementing the development and shall not be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to enhance the appearance of the development and minimise the impact of the development in the locality.
19. Prior to the commencement of works details of the siting and design of the proposed bird boxes to be erected within the application site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouse(s) hereby approved. Reason: To safeguard the habitat of bats, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Pre-Submission Draft, May 2013.
20. Prior to the commencement of works a reptile protection scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouse(s) hereby approved. Reason: To safeguard the habitat of birds, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Pre-Submission Draft, May 2013.
21. Prior to the commencement of any works which may affect bats or their habitat, a detailed mitigation and monitoring strategy should be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works should then proceed in accordance with the approved strategy with any amendments agreed in writing. Reason: To safeguard the habitat of reptiles, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), PreSubmission Draft, May 2013.
22. The works shall be implemented solely in accordance with the recommendation on page 17-21 of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report Issued September 2012. Reason: To safeguard the habitat of protected species, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN32 of the
Page 8 Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Pre-Submission Draft, May 2013.
23. Details of the colour of the render shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences, and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).
24. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until details of all external roof materials have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Only the materials so approved shall be used in the development as approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CO3 of the Allerdale Local Plan and Policy HS8 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved).
Proactive Statement
The Local Planning Authority had 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 had 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:
Waste Management
In England, it is a legal requirement to have a site waste management plan (SWMP) for all new construction projects worth more than £300,000. The level of detail that your SWMP should contain depends on the estimated build cost, excluding VAT. You must still comply with the duty of care for waste. Because you will need to record all waste movements in one direction, having a SWMP will help you to ensure you comply with the duty of care.
Further information can be found at http://www.netregs-swmp.co.uk
The Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate permitted facility and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations.
Page 9
If any waste is to be used onsite, the applicant will be required to obtain the appropriate waste exemption or permit from us. We are unable to specify what exactly would be required if anything, due to the limited amount of information provided.
The applicant is advised to contact the Environmental Management team at the Environment Agency’s Penrith Office on 03708 506 506 or refer to guidance on their website http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste
Access Road
The applicant stated that the internal road would be offered for adoption. The Highways Authority suggest this road will not be adopted, as this will only give access to the parking area, with no real public benefit.
406 Development Panel - 2.2013.0814 - Erection of Dwelling - Scales Terrace, High Scales, Aspatria, Wigton
The application: Erection of dwelling, Scales Terrace, High Scales, Aspatria, Wigton.
The Principal Planning Officer recommended refusal.
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report.
Members were advised of 1 letter of objection.
The Principal Planning Officer also informed members of a letter of objection which stated that the officers report was incorrect in regards to the drainage that appeared on the late list.
Councillor J Armstrong moved approval with officers having delegated powers to agree conditions. This was seconded by Councillor R Munby.
Councillor W Jefferson moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor C Armstrong.
A vote was taken, 5 in favour of refusal, 7 against and 0 abstentions.
The motion in favour of refusal was lost.
A vote was taken, 7 in favour of approval with officers having delegated powers to agree conditions, 4 against and 1 abstention.
The motion in favour of approval with officers having delegated powers to agree conditions was carried.
The decision: Approved with officers having delegated powers to agree conditions.
Page 10 Reasons:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun 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: BP1 – Site Location Plan 12.20.02 - Proposed Elevation 12.20.05 - Site Block Plan Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.
3. Details of the siting, height and type of all means of enclosure/screen walls/fences/other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any such walls/fences etc shall be constructed prior to the approved building being brought into use/occupied. All means of enclosure so constructed shall be retained and no part thereof shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which is compatible with the character of the surrounding area and protect the privacy of occupiers.
4. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the vehicular access, parking and turning requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and have been brought into use. The vehicular access, parking and turning provisions shall be retained and capable of use at all times thereafter and shall not be removed or altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a minimum standard of access, parking and turning provision when the development is brought into use.
5. Prior to the commencement of works details of the surface water drainage works, including any attenuation measures to demonstrate that no greater run off rate than the existing greenfield site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of any of the dwelling house hereby approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of surface water drainage and minimise the risk of flooding, in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN14 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations, June 2006 (Saved).
6. Details of the foul sewage package treatment plant shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The package treatment plant shall be constructed prior to the approved dwelling being occupied and shall be retained fully operational for the lifetime of the property. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development Page 11
407 Development Panel - 2.2013.0705 - Erection of single wind turbine with a hub height of 60m and a tip height of 86.5m - Kelsick House Farm, Kelsick, Abbey Town, Wigton
Councillor J Lister joined the meeting and took part in the decision for the following application.
The application: Erection of single turbine with a height of up to 60m and tip height of up to 86.5m with associated infrastructure works, Kelsick House Farm, Kelsick, Abbeytown, Wigton.
The Principal Planning Officer recommended refusal.
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report.
Members were advised of 13 letters of objection and 51 letters of support.
The Principal Planning Officer also informed members of a letter submitted by the applicant in response to the officer’s report and an objection from Holme Low Parish Council that appeared on the late list.
Councillor N Cockburn expressed concern in regards to the letters of support being all in the same format and requested that legal look into this.
Councillor W Jefferson moved refusal. This was seconded by Councillor N Cockburn.
A vote was taken, 12 in favour of refusal, 0 against and 1 abstention.
The motion in favour of refusal was carried.
The decision: Refused.
Reasons:
1. The Local Planning Authority considered the proposed turbine, by virtue of its detached and isolated location to other wind turbines in the locality (and having regard to the weight of objection from the local parish council representations), would form a visually prominent and incoherent feature which would have an adverse individual and cumulative landscape and visual amenity impact on the surrounding open countryside including the setting of the Solway Coast AONB contrary to paragraphs 7, 17, 96, 97 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Policy S32 of the Draft Allerdale Local Plan (Part1), the "Local planning and onshore wind" Ministerial statement 2013 and the Department for Communities and local
Page 12 government's "Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy" document 2013.
2. The Local Planning Authority considered the proposal, by virtue of its site, scale and separation distance from the properties Swinsty Farm Thornlea, Criffel View, St Avon, Blencathra and Cumbria along Swinsty Road would have an overwhelming, overbearing and oppressive impact on the visual amenity of its occupiers resulting in an unacceptable place to live contrary to Paragraph 14 and 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S32 of the Draft Alllerdale Local Plan (Part1).
3. The Local Planning Authority considered the proposed turbine by virtue of its site, size and design, in association with the existing turbines at Hellrigg and its surrounding area would have a detrimental combined and sequential cumulative impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding landscape including the setting of the Solway Coast AONB contrary to paragraphs 7, 17, 96, 97 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan (saved). and Policy S32 of the Draft Allerdale Local Plan (Part1), the "Local planning and onshore wind" Ministerial statement 2013 and the Department for Communities and local government's "Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy" document 2013.
Proactive Statement
The Local Planning Authority had 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 were so fundamental to the proposal that it had not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which had been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval had not been possible.
408 Appeal Decision - 2.2012.0594 - Erection of three wind turbines with a maximum height of 100m - Land at Potatoe Pot, Branthwaite, Workington
The report was noted.
The meeting closed at 3.00 pm
Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 14 Agenda Item 5
Allerdale Borough Council
2/2013/0037
Reference No: 2/2013/0037 Received: 08 January 2013 Proposed Proposed siting of 2 X 24.6m high (hub) wind turbines Development: Location: Snowhill Farm Caldbeck Wigton Applicant: Mr Maurice Smallwood
Drawing N umbers: Draw No1.1 - Proposed Elevations Drawing no.1.2 - Site Location plan Drawing no.1.3 - Site Location Plan EWP50_F_001 Rev D- Foundation and Bolt Arrangement DR1 – Photographs/Photomontages/Wireframes DR2 - Design and Access Statement DR3 - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment DR4 - Acoustic Data DR5 - Noise Performance Test DR6 - Wind Turbine Details AAH/1706/13PLA – Non Technical Summary AAH/1706/13PLA – Environmental Statement
Constraints: Radon Assessment EN22 ASCA Area
Policies: National Planning Policy Framework
3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy July 2013 A ministerial statement by the Rt. Hon Eric Pickles MP was issued on 6/6/2013. The statement regards the planning reforms to make the planning process more accessible to communities giving local people the opportunity to influence decisions that affect their lives.
The statement makes specific and direct reference to onshore turbine development and the view that decisions are not always reflecting the locally-led planning system.
Page 15 It is stated that action is required to deliver the balance expected within the NPPF and to ensure that protecting the local environment is properly considered alongside the broader issues of protecting the global environment.
In this respect, the new planning guidance sets out clearly that:
1. The need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. 2. Decisions should take into account the cumulative impact of wind turbines and properly reflect the increasing impact upon a) the landscape b) local amenity as the number of turbines in the area increases. 3. Local topography should be a factor in assessing whether wind turbines have a damaging impact upon the landscape (i.e. recognise that the impact on predominantly flat landscapes can be as great or greater than on hilly or mountainous ones). 4. Great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting.
Allerdale Local Plan
Policy CO13 - The setting of a Conservation Area, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO18 - Setting of a Listed building, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO19 - Protection of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, 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 EN25 - Protecting the open countryside, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN26 - Protecting nature sites of international importance, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN27 - Protecting SSSI's, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN6 - Location of potentially polluting development, Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)
Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Pre-submission Draft
Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development,
Page 16 Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S14 - Rural economy, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S35 - Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Policy S36 - Air, water and soil quality, Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1)
Relevant Planning A screening opinion has been issued by the Local Planning History: Authority following the submission of the planning application. This opinion stated that the proposal did constitute EIA development. This was then verified by the Secretary of State by Screening Direction.
Representations: Caldbeck Parish Council – object. Very prominent position on the skyline would spoil the character and appearance of this landscape right on the edge of the Lake District National Park, contrary to the advice within the Lake District Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines.
Ireby and Uldale Parish Council – object. Adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area, due to their elevated position on the southern end of a high ridge, which projects into and is surrounded by the LDNP. Material and harmful effect on the openness and undeveloped character of the area. Visual intrusion in open landscape to receptors on adjacent roads, walkers
Boltons Parish Council – object. Elevated position and lack of screening means that the visual and landscape impact of the development would be deleterious to the surrounding landscape and have a negative impact on the LDNP and its setting. Impact on residents, walkers and cyclists. Harm tourism. Minimal benefits are outweighed by the harm.
Civil Aviation Authority – No concerns raised.
NATS - No objection.
MoD - No objection. If permission is granted, the MOD must be informed of the date construction commences, the maximum height and the latitude/longitude.
Environment Agency – No objections. Conditions/recommendations relating to surface water drainage, pollution prevention and waste management. Reference is also made to the Snowhill Quarry local nature reserve. Provided access to the turbine is not through this nature reserve, then no biodiversity comments are raised.
County Council Highways - No objection subject to conditions
Page 17 requiring the road to be kept clear of mud during the construction phase, a Traffic Management Plan be submitted for approval, details for crossing the highway verge, and details of surface water drainage, parking, turning.
County Council Strategic Planning - This is not a Category 1 application, therefore Strategic Planning will not be responding.
Natural England 1st Response The impact of the proposal could have an adverse effect on the purposes for which the Lake District National Park has been designated. Note that the submitted LVIA states that the landscape within the vicinity of the proposed site is ‘transitional, and that new development may erode distinctive characteristics which include the uninterrupted views across moorland to a backdrop of hills. LPA must take account of the importance of the local landscape as the setting of the LDNP.
2nd Response Concerns relating to the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted with the application. • The presence of the telecoms tower is used throughout the LVIA as justification that the turbines will have minimal impact due to vertical structures being present already. The telecom tower is taller, but is thinner and arguably will have less visual intrusion than the moving turbine blades. • The telecom tower should not set precedence for further vertical structures as these will then become a dominant characteristic of the landscape. References the fragility of the landscape. • Concerned that the magnitude of impact described within the LVIA is not adequate for some of the viewpoints. Changes to VP7 and VP4 would result in moderate/major significance. These VPs are located on footpaths and bridleways so would be experienced for longer periods than road users and by those experiencing the area for recreational purposes. • Acknowledge that the small scale of the turbines will limit the distance into the National Park that the impact will be experienced. • Refer to National Park Authority for advice.
Environmental Health - No objection, condition recommended limiting noise levels for the nearest noise sensitive property.
County Archaeologist – No objections.
RSPB – No comments received.
Page 18 Stobart Air on behalf of Carlisle Airport – No objection.
Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No comments received.
Lake District National Park Authority – Objection. Detailed comments are reported in the assessment below.
Arqiva – No objection.
The application has been advertised by site notice and neighbour letter.
The Environmental Statement has been advertised within the press and by site notice (by the applicant), in accordance with the EIA Regulations 2011.
45 letters of objection have been received to the proposal. The comments received are summarised as follows: • Incongruous with this sensitive landscape. • Negative visual Impact on the Lake District National Park • Incorrect reference to the National Park boundary – referred to being south, but to the east and west, it extends north also, surrounding the site on three sides. • Supporting documents do not meet the relevant guidelines of an Environmental Impact Assessment • There are many errors, misconceptions and conclusion statements without justification. • In relation to cumulative impact, it is unclear which other turbines have been considered, Clea Mire appeal site has not been included. • Incorrect reference to a scheme of 11-15 turbines at Ireby • Foliage/topography screening the turbines is incorrect. • The landscape within the site may be as significant as that within the Park, when visiting the site, one cannot differentiate between the landscape that it designated and Snowhill. • Receptors within the National Park do not see a boundary in the landscape as one does on the map. Turbines in that landscape would have a negative impact on all receptors using the area. • Openess would undoubtedly be impacted on, so also would be the wildness, a key word missing from the Environmental Statement. • Medium scale turbines, but sited on a ridge, makes their dominance and intrusion into this sensitive landscape much worse. • The Lake District Landscape Character Guidelines repeats the importance of the openness of the landscape, ‘wind turbine development occurring on important skylines would
Page 19 have a significant impact on landscape quality’. It also flags the importance of protecting views to and from the area. • No trees would be tall enough to screen the turbines. Many are deciduous and would be without foliage for 9 months of the year. • The turbines would tower above the farm and would not be perceived as part of this business. • The two existing communications masts cannot be used as justification for further development, they do not screen the application site. • The turbines would further clutter the skyline. • Turbine rotation draws the eye. • Not satisfied that the noise information provided is sufficient to substantiate no loss of amenity. • The benefits to the quarry in terms of electricity supply should not be an important consideration because the quarries only have timescales of 2016 and 2017, whereas the turbines will be there for 25 years. • Questions activities at the site, whether quarrying and farming is ongoing, sufficient to justify the need for electricity generation? • References British Wind Energy Association publication from 2006, where 22% of tourists said that wind development would put them off visiting the area. Scottish Tourist Board has quoted similar figures. These provide strong evidence that tourism would be affected. Damaging tourism would be a mismanagement of our assets. • Proposal that the Lake District be put forward as a World Heritage Site, turbines would not be beneficial to this. • The turbines would be visible from the Uldale and Caldbeck fells and Skiddaw, visited by thousands of walkers each year. • This is a popular walking route and the Coast to Coast cycle route passes very close. The impact of these turbines on recreational users of this area would be unacceptable. • Turbines are inefficient and not the answer to energy demands. • The National Park is at risk of being hemmed in by turbine development. • Concern for bird life. • Duty to preserve the Lake District for future generations. • What benefit will they be to local people • The DECC Roadmap for energy development allowed a buffer zone of 2km around the outside of the National Park boundary within which it was not expected that wind turbines would be allowed. • Elevated location of the proposal means that it will be visible for some considerable distance, including views from many parts of the National Park.
Page 20 • Turbines would present an incongruous industrial appearance. • Sustainability is not simply about renewable energy. References New Hutton appeal, ‘important though promotion of renewable energy development is, so too is conserving the quality of the landscape, and such conservation is in itself a way of pursuing sustainability’. • Turbines are inefficient, the power generated is intermittent. • Landscape is a non-renewable resource that is being degraded • Turbines themselves are a huge demand on resources. • Infrasound emissions and raising health issues. • Physical danger of turbines getting blown over or catching on fire. • Proliferation of wind turbine development which have caused irreparable damage. • Reference a report from the Council for the Protection of Rural England stating an ongoing threat to the National Park from wind farm cumulative impact, particularly acute in two areas, one of which is Allerdale, between the LDNP and the AONB.
Four letters of support have been received, summarised as follows: • The green impact of the farm is paramount. • The tree planting scheme is already in operation to screen the turbines and quarry working. • The energy produced by these turbines is needed locally. • These turbines will not present any visible impact on the landscape. • Turbines are an excellent solution to high energy demands.
Report Proposal
The proposal is for two 50kW wind turbines approx. 24.6m to hub height and 34.2m to tip height with 3 blades. The base for each turbine would be approx. 6.0m².
The supporting information indicates that the electricity generated by the proposed turbines would contribute to the energy needs of the quarrying activities at the site, with any surplus being sold back to the National Grid, providing an additional income stream to the farm.
Site and Surrounding Area
The siting of the proposed two turbines relates to grazing land to the north of Snowhill Farm, Caldbeck. The farm itself is set back from the B5299, between the settlements of Boltongate and
Page 21 Caldbeck. The farmhouse and associated buildings are at a higher ground level than the road, surrounded by a number of mature trees. Land levels continue to rise to the north of the farm, where two small quarries exist. The plan provided indicates that the turbines would be positioned to the north of each of these two small quarries.
Both turbines would be positioned at approx. 320m AOD.
The immediate locality is farmland, largely used for grazing, where the land contains a mixture of boundary treatment, including walls, fencing, interspersed at times by pockets of woodland. Immediately to the south of the farm, the landscape has an open moorland characteristic, with limited boundary treatment along the highway. There are limited built structures within the immediate locality, only the farm buildings of Snowhill and a single detached dwelling to the west. The two transmission masts of Sandale and Brocklebank are positioned at a distance to the northwest and northeast.
The site is positioned approx. 440m from the Lake District National Park boundary (south). To the east and west, the National Park boundary extends northerly, as such the application site is effectively surrounded on three sides by land within the National Park.
Policy Context
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states a presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14. This presumption requires that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of a proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF. Paragraph 93 of the NPPF makes clear that the provision of renewable energy infrastructure is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.
The NPPF also states that even comparatively small scale projects can make a significant contribution to meeting national need. This is reflected in the Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (July 2013) which states that increasing the amount of energy from renewable and low carbon technologies will help to ensure that the UK has a secure energy supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow down climate change and stimulate investment in new jobs and businesses. The Guidance goes on to state that planning has an important role in the delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure in locations where the local environmental impact is acceptable.
Page 22 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 Council has adopted the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document.
Saved policies EN19 and EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan seek to protect the open countryside landscape from inappropriate development. No Allerdale Borough Council policies specifically relating to renewable energy have been ‘saved’.
Assessment
Landscape and Visual Impact
The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (LCG) supports appropriately located schemes for wind energy in line with the provisions of the Cumbria Joint Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which was adopted by the Council in 2007.The site falls within Cumbria’s landscape classification 12b Rolling Fringe –, which is characterised by:
• Large-scale undulating topography • Large fields of improved pasture • Stone walls mainly in the east, occasional hedges and fence boundaries • Very sparse tree cover • Some large scale conifer plantations • Small streams and rivers cut through the rolling topography
In this area, it forms the fringe of the northern Lake District fells. It mainly comprises large scale, rolling or undulating topography at altitudes of 150-300m AOD with some high points reaching around 380m AOD.
The Cumbria Landscape Character Assessment also states that:
• These ‘transitional’ landscapes are traditionally fragile in nature and new development may further exaggerate this trend eroding distinctive characteristics. • The Government’s commitment to renewable energy could
Page 23 see an interest in large scale wind energy schemes in this open area which could change key open views and the feeling of wildness felt in parts of this area.
The Cumbria Landscape Character Assessment advises that development in the transitional, fragile and exposed areas that will degrade their character should be avoided, specifically tall or vertical energy infrastructure developments such as large scale wind turbines and pylons.
The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD indicates that landscape character area 12b has a low to moderate landscape capacity, exceptionally a larger group in blander parts. Although the SPD advises that this landscape has some capacity to accommodate wind turbines, this does not mean that such proposals would be acceptable anywhere within it. The SPD recognises that Type 12: Higher Limestone is largely unspoilt, ‘therefore protection of uncluttered and distinctive landmark skylines and a sense of remoteness or quietness are also major issues.
The planning application has been accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Zone of Theoretical Visibility Map and photomontages/wireframes. The submitted Environmental Statement also considers this issue and contains additional supporting material.
Applicants submission: The landscape and visual assessment/Environmental Statement submitted by the applicant is summarised as follows:
• The applicant’s assessment contends that the features of interest within the landscape which contribute most significantly to its character would remain relatively unaffected after the siting of the two turbines. Some landscape characteristics would be slightly/moderately adversely affected, as well as the scale which would suffer moderate impact. • As a result, the applicant’s assessment contends that the overall impact on this landscape type can be considered to be slight/moderate adverse, including consideration of the National Park. • The applicant’s assessment contends that the turbines would be visible from some local vantage points, with impacts diminishing with distance. Views of the turbines from more sensitive areas, including from the National Park and the National Trail demonstrate in the applicants view that although the site is elevated, the turbines are of a suitable scale to ensure limited magnitudes of impact and that the level of screening offered within these views by adjacent trees and other
Page 24 human infrastructure (communications towers, help to offset substantial impacts to the points where the turbines appear incongruous within the local area. • The applicant’s assessment states that noting the distance to existing/consented wind turbines, the likelihood of cumulative impacts are low in light of the scale of the development and limited routes in the area whereby sequential views will be achievable. • States those impacts would be over the long term, but reversible. • The applicant’s assessment states that overall, the proposed turbines would be compatible with the landscape and cultural heritage protection aims of the Lake District National Park, and that the scale of the proposal is acceptable in landscape/visual impact conservation terms.
Officer Assessment:
The landscape character in the locality of the application is one of rising ground to the north of a relatively wide moorland valley that extends to the south into the Lake District National Park, the boundary of which is approximately 440m away from the proposed turbines. Land levels undulate to the south, before rising up towards the northern fells. To the north, land levels continue to rise beyond the application site, before reaching a plateau. There are limited built structures within the immediate area, the adjacent farm being screened to a large degree by mature trees and planting. Albeit the site has been used for quarrying, the quarry sites are small and hold discrete positions, well screened within the wider landscape.
Existing tall structures are limited to the more distant transmission masts at Sandale and Brocklebank, which are 1.4km north, and 4.3km north respectively, and a line of small scale power lines to the south (poles not pylons). Local roads are minor, long stretches of which are open, not bound by hedging or walls.
The expansive and rugged nature of the landscape and the lack of man made structures give this area a sense of wildness and remoteness.
The proposed turbines would hold a prominent, elevated location above both the farm and the quarry, on rising land. From the application site, there are expansive views, particularly to the south across to the panorama of the fells. Views are also possible to the east, north and west, albeit local topography may restrict views to and from the site to a degree in these directions. As there are expansive views from the site, then it follows that the site would also be visible from a wide area within which there is an
Page 25 extensive range of footpaths, roads and other vantage points from where the proposed turbines would be visible. Public views of the proposed turbine would be possible from along parts of the surrounding highway network, open access land and the public right of way/bridleway network, particularly from the south, which includes the National Trail - the Cumbria Way.
The elevation of the site, the proximity to and relationship with the National Park, and the proximity of national trails all contribute to the high sensitivity of this location.
Viewpoints 4, 5 and 7 of the submitted photomontages demonstrate the elevated and prominent nature of the site, when viewed from recreational routes and the local road network. Viewpoint 7 also demonstrates that whilst the farm buildings and quarry sites at Snowhill Farm are well screened by vegetation when viewed from the south, the proposed turbines would not be screened to the same or any significant degree. Viewpoint 12 also demonstrates views of the turbines from the north, as part of panoramic views towards the fells. The turbines appear as the only man-made structures within this viewpoint.
Viewpoints 8 and 9 show clear visibility from the west and Viewpoint 13 demonstrates that the visibility of the turbines would extend into the National Park at almost 3km.
The comments of Natural England are noted, the magnitude of impact described within the submitted LVIA is not considered to be adequate for some of the viewpoints. Changes to VP7 and VP4 would result in moderate/major significance. Natural England note that these viewpoints are located on footpaths and bridleways so would be experienced for longer periods than road users and by those experiencing the area for recreational purposes.
Although a moderately sized turbine model, Officer’s are concerned that at approx. 34m to tip, the proposed turbines would be obvious and intrusive features on this prominent hillside. Such vertical structures, within such a prominent and exposed location, would have a significant visual impact within this sensitive landscape and would degrade the rural character of the locality, reducing its sense of wildness and remoteness.
Whilst the assessment and conclusions of the applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Environmental Statement are noted, Officer’s consider that this assessment does not give sufficient weight to the magnitude of change that would result to the quality of the local landscape as a result of the proposal. Further, the assessment is considered to rely too heavily on the argument that existing vegetation, transmission masts and buildings would somehow mitigate the proposal in terms of
Page 26 landscape and visual harm.
The masts at Sandale and Brocklebank pre-date the NPPF and sit much further back from the National Park boundary. They are fixed, monopole structures, which are unlikely to draw the eye to the same degree as rotating turbines.
The turbines would rise above the nearby farm buildings and vegetation and would not be screened to any significant degree from a number of viewpoints.
The SPD and LCG identify the local landscape as sensitive to such development in the Cumbrian context. Whilst they do not preclude all wind turbine development, a particular sensitivity of this landscape type is stated as the ‘Open, uninterrupted views across moorland to a backdrop of hills sensitive to large prominent infrastructure or other development’ . Officers consider that the proposed turbine would be an incongruous intrusion into this landscape type, harmful to the visual amenities of the locality, contrary to saved policies EN19 and EN25 of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan (LP) and advice contained within the NPPF.
Impact on National Landscape Designations
The NPPF states at paragraph 115 that, ‘Great weight should be given to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty’.
Whilst not within the National Park boundary, the site lies within an ‘indent’ extending southeast into the northern boundary of the National Park. The nearest proposed turbine is less than 1.0km from the National Park boundary to the south-west, 440m to the south and 1.1km to the north-east.
In respect to the potential impact of the proposal on the National Park, the advice of the National Park’s Landscape Architect has been sought. The Park Authority’s remit relates to identifiable, direct and quantifiable effects on the National Park in accordance with the Park Authority’s statutory purposes to protect the special qualities and setting of the LDNP. This considers views both from the National Park, that is where the development would be seen from and how it would be perceived from within the boundary, and also views of the National Park from outside the boundary.
The assessment of the proposal by the National Park’s Landscape Architect is summarised as follows: • Turbines, even those classified as small-scale, will always be a prominent feature in the landscape though obviously
Page 27 distance will mitigate their effects. The distance required to mitigate visual effects to an acceptable degree will vary according to circumstances such as the character/sensitivity/capacity of the receiving landscape and the type of visual receptor. • Where the receiving landscape is of a similar character to the adjacent land within the National Park, there will be character flow between the two. Where this is the case the setting of the National Park is likely to be affected by large scale development outside the boundary. • The site here is located on a limestone ridge which is a continuation of Faulds Brow to the east within the National Park and which carries on west to Aughertree Fell, again within the National Park. This land is classified as Landscape Character Type (LCT) I: Upland Limestone Farmland in our Landscape Character Assessment and character flow across the boundary and the defining attributes of the receiving landscape lead to the conclusion that the development site is clearly within the setting of the National Park. • This is further reinforced by the topography of the area where the south facing aspect of the site accentuates intervisibility with the rolling limestone of the same LCT within the National Park and the adjacent High Fell Fringe and High Fell LCTs leading to the rising mass of the Skiddaw/Blencathra massif facing. • There is a predominant sense of openness leading to extensive panoramic views and a general lack of both natural and built features giving the impression of a simple and uncluttered landscape which is highly sensitive to the introduction of large scale, vertical features. Although the proposal is classed as small scale in terms of wind energy development, scale is a relative concept and compared to other scale indicators in this landscape, the turbines are large. The table below helps to illustrate this.
Landscape element Height in metres
Single storey house 5m
1.5 to 2 storey house 6 – 10m Farmyard grain silo 10m Telegraph pole 10.5m Mature forest trees 20m Pylon 30 – 35m Proposed turbines 24.6 to hub/34.2m to blade tip
• Some minor mitigation provided by the existing plantations and quarry workings, but this is not greatly significant in the
Page 28 wider landscape context. The open character of the landscape and the general lack of tall vertical features point to this landscape type having a high sensitivity to, and a low capacity for, this type of development. • Within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) the principal visual receptors are walkers on public footpaths and CRoW Act open access land both in close proximity to the site and on more distant high ground and from close and distant views from the B5299 and the rural road network which due to the rolling nature of the topography are extensive. • The views from many viewpoints (not just those covered in the Environmental Statement) are panoramic and the turbines are often either seen with a backdrop of open sky or the Lake District fells which in both cases detracts from the viewing experience. Walkers and other recreational users of land and routes are at the sensitive end of the scale of sensitivity. Under normal circumstances road users are at the less sensitive end of the scale, except that these routes are far from typical being unenclosed fell roads in an extensive and very open landscape where the experience of landscape and sense of place is intensified. • To conclude, the character of the receiving landscape is so similar to that of the National Park with which it is juxtaposed that it is certainly within the setting of the protected landscape and that this landscape has a low capacity for this type of development without adverse change. The size of the proposed turbines in the context of the open, gently rolling landscape and the general lack of other natural and built features to act as scale indicators will ensure that they are a prominent feature in the landscape within a substantial zone of visibility. This is not considered to be a suitable site for this type and scale of development as it would give rise to significant harm to the landscape and setting of the National Park.
Officers generally concur with the comments received from the National Park’s Landscape Architect. The concerns expressed by the National Park Authority are considered to relate to and extend the landscape and visual amenity harm already identified by Officers in the assessment above, by confirming that the harm arising from the proposal would be sufficiently significant to adversely impact on the landscape and setting of the National Park, contrary to advice within the NPPF.
Cumulative Impact
The proposal is considered to be sufficiently separated from other wind turbine development and man made structures so as not to raise any significant concerns in terms of cumulative landscape and visual impact.
Page 29 The existing masts at Sandale and Brocklebank have been highlighted above as man made structures within the wider locality, but achieve a sufficient separation distance. There are no pylons within the vicinity of the site.
Constructed/consented turbine development is largely to the north. Given the scale of the proposal and the plateau beyond the application site to the north, cumulative views of the proposal with more northerly turbine development would be largely restricted by topography.
A permission for a single turbine at Sandale Transmitting Station, for a 15.6m to tip (2/2010/0657), has expired.
Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Aviation and RADAR
NATS and the MoD have raised no objections to the proposal, nor has Stobart Air on behalf of Carlisle airport. As such, the scheme is considered acceptable in terms of aviation safety and radar insofar as these agencies interests are concerned. These organisations have requested notification of approval of the scheme and erection of the structures. This could be dealt with by suitable condition if planning permission were given.
Arqiva (representing the BBC, ITV and Re-Broadcast Links) has raised no objection to the proposal.
Based on the consultation responses, the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to electromagnetic interference.
Residential Amenity (including noise and shadow flicker)
The nearest residential properties to the proposal are isolated properties to the south and east.
Snowhill Cottage – 450m south with a rear elevation facing towards the proposed westerly turbine.
Thistlebottom – 890m east, with a main elevation facing north/south, not directly towards the proposed turbines.
Snowhill Cottage has a rear elevation directed to the north. Views of the more westerly turbine may be possible from the rear of this property, but given the presence of existing vegetation directly to the rear of this property, the separation distance and topography involved, the scale of the turbines, and the proportion of the field of view that the turbines would take up, it is not considered that this proposed turbine would appear visually dominant to residents of this property.
Page 30 Views of the turbines from Thisledown are unlikely given the main orientation of the dwelling.
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 level 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 35dB (A) up to wind speeds of 10m/s should not require background noise measurements.
The application includes some acoustic information for the Endurance turbine specified. Environmental Health has confirmed no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. A condition is recommended that noise from the wind turbine be limited to the ETSU guidelines for the nearest noise sensitive property along with a procedure for dealing with noise complaints.
There are no related or unrelated residential properties within 10 rotor diameters of the turbine. Shadow flicker is not therefore anticipated to be significant and would not justify grounds for refusal.
As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of residential visual impact, potential noise and shadow flicker.
Biodiversity
The proposed turbine has been sited approx. 50m from field hedges in accordance with Natural England advice on bats.
The Environment Agency has noted that turbine 2 lies within close proximity to the Snowhill Quarry local nature reserve. They are satisfied that provided the access to the turbine is not through this nature reserve, then they have no concerns. This aspect of the proposal could be addressed by condition, were the application deemed to be acceptable.
No designated ecological sites fall within 2km of the proposal.
Based on the above, it is considered unlikely that the proposal will have any significant impact on wildlife species or protected habitats. The scheme is therefore considered to be acceptable in
Page 31 relation to policies EN26 – EN29 and EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan and advice contained within the NPPF.
Built Heritage
The submitted Environmental Statement considers the range of heritage assets within the locality.
The County Archaeologist has confirmed no objections to the proposal in relation to possible local archaeological remains.
There is one Grade II listed building approx. 890m to the east (Thistlebottom farmhouse). Given the intervening distance and topography, and the scale of the proposed turbines, it is considered that the proposal would not significantly affect the setting of this listed building, in accordance with saved policy CO18 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
The proposal is considered to be a sufficient distance from any Conservation Area, not to adversely affect their setting, in accordance with saved policy CO13 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
There are two scheduled monuments in close proximity to the site, a settlement to the NNW of Thistlebottom, approx. 880m from the proposed easterly turbine, and a second described as ‘Three Romano-British settlements, an irregular aggregate field system, and a bowl barrow on Aughertree Fell’, 1.2km to the south west of the most westerly turbines. The proposal will have no direct impact on these scheduled monuments and it is considered that the intervening distance is sufficient to preserve the archaeological interest and value of these sites in accordance with saved policy CO19 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Highway/Traffic Impact
The Companion Guide to the now withdrawn PPS22 Renewable Energy suggested 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 being rare). The separation distance proposed is in excess of this. As such, it is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the highway in an unacceptable manner in terms of safety.
The Highways Authority has raised no objection subject to conditions highlighted above. On the advice of the Highways Authority, the highway implications of the proposal are considered to be acceptable.
Public Rights of Way
Page 32 The proposal is located a sufficient distance from Public Rights of Way, bridleways and National Trails to remove any risk of toppling etc.
Needs/Benefits of Renewable Energy Development
The needs and benefits of the proposal are important elements in the overall planning balance.
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 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 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.
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 and the contribution the
Page 33 scheme would make to renewable energy production is a material consideration that carries weight in the planning balance.
However the recent Ministerial advice for renewable energy development issued in July 2013 highlights that energy needs do not automatically outweigh any environmental constraints or the views of the local community.
Conclusion
In considering turbine applications, it is necessary to identify the harmful effects of the proposal, and then to consider if these are outweighed by the benefits, including the local economic benefits arising from farm diversification and the wider benefits arising from the promotion of renewable energy development.
In this instance, Officer’s are concerned that at approx. 34m to tip, the two proposed turbines would be an obvious feature on an exposed hillside, representing a harmful intrusion into a landscape, noted for its remoteness and wildness. This landscape is appreciated by receptors from local footpaths, bridleways, trails and cycle routes, as well as the local road network and the proposal would be harmful to the visual amenity of the locality. Officers consider the scheme would be harmful in landscape and visual impact terms, especially as a result of its proximity to the Lake District National Park, which has the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. This harm cannot be mitigated and is not considered to be outweighed by the small contribution that these two turbines would make to developing the supply of renewable energy. As such, the proposal is considered contrary to saved policies of the Allerdale Local Plan and advice contained within the NPPF.
The recommendation is for refusal.
Given the environmental concerns identified, which have also been referred to within local representations, including the Parish Councils, it is considered appropriate to also add the Planning Practice Guidance to the policy context of the recommended reason for refusal.
Local Finance Considerations
Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal does not have any local finance considerations.
Page 34 Recommendation: Refused
Conditions/ 1. The proposed turbines, by reason o f their scale and Reasons: elevated location on an exposed hillside, are considered to represent a significant harmful intrusion into the landscape, including the landscape setting of the Lake District National Park, to the detriment of the landscape character and visual amenity of the locality. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policies EN19 and EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan, and Para’s 7, 14, 17,96,97, 98, 109 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy July 2013.
Proactive Statement
The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of planning policies, constraints, stakeholder representations and concerns with the proposal and determining the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reason(s) for refusal, allowing the Applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to the proposal. The Local Planning Authority is willing to meet with the Applicant to discuss the best course of action and is also willing to provide pre- application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.
Notes to Applicant:
Page 35
Page 36 Agenda Item 6
Allerdale Borough Council
2/2013/0812
Reference No: 2/2013/0812 Received: 18 November 2013 Proposed Conversion of existing attached barns into 2 no. dwellings and Development: demolition of existing redundant agricultural buildings Location: Fieldside Farm Dovenby Cockermouth Applicant: Trustees of The Fieldside Trust
Drawing Numbers: B1180 P 01 - Existing and Site Location Plan B1180 P 02 - Proposed Barn 1 B1180 P 03 - Proposed Barn 2 B1180 P04 REV B - Proposed Block Plan (Amendment received 21/1/14) B1180 P 05 - Door and Window Details Sewage Treatment Proposals (amendment received (7/1/2014) ET13BAT002.001 Bat and Barn Owl Survey dated 28/6/2013
Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)
Policy EN14 - Safeguarding Water Environment Policy EN32 - Protecting wildlife protected by law Policy EN7 - Location of pollution sensitive development
Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, June 2006 (Saved)
Policy HS6 - Conversions to residential outside settlements Policy HS9 - Infrastructure requirements for housing
Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Pre-Submission Draft May 2013
Policy S1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy S31 - Reuse of rural buildings and replacement of dwellings in the countryside Policy S32 - Safeguarding amenity Policy S4 - Design principles
National Planning Policy Framework
Relevant Planning none History:
Representations: Parish Council – Objection regarding residential development in
Page 37 open countryside forming a small hamlet, highway safety at access junction, barn owls resident in barn, inappropriate large dwellings with potential for holiday let loss of agricultural business. Highway Authority – No objection. Natural England – No objection subject to standing advice. County Archaeologist – No objection subject to condition for architectural recording exercise. Environmental Health – No objection following satisfactory completion of barn conversion questionnaire Environment Agency – No objection/comment regarding drainage
The application has been advertised on site. The current tenant of the land has been notified by the applicant with the submission of Certificate B. Report Proposal
Application for the conversion of agricultural barns to provide two dwellings. The demolition of five modern agricultural buildings at the site is also required.
Site and Surroundings
The application site comprises a traditional farmhouse with two attached barns of stone and slate construction. The site is accessed by the farm access track 70 metres from the public highway. Open countryside is noted on all sides.
The site is between three villages with Tallentire 1.3km north, Dovenby 1km south west and Bridekirk 1.3km southeast. The nearby school is just 400m away with the full range of services in Cockermouth 3km south via the A594.
Policy Guidelines
The principle of residential conversion in the open countryside is subject to Policy HS6 of the Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration. The emerging policies of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part1) Pre- Submission Draft are also given due weight with particular reference to Policy S31. The NPPF and its presumption for sustainable development provides national policy guidelines.
Assessment
The Site
The site is within reasonable access of existing settlements including the key centre of Cockermouth. In that respect the site location is considered sustainable and the two dwellings are
Page 38 proportional to the location in open countryside.
Proposal Details
The applicant has provided a statement that summarises that the long-term farming activity at the site is becoming financially unviable and that the future of the farm is under review. The applicant has a number of options including rapid expansion and intensification of the farm, acquisition of additional land and amalgamation with other farms. These options all require significant investment and considerable risk in the current economic climate.
This application considers the further option of full residential conversion with demolition of the remaining modern agricultural buildings at the site as shown on the submitted block plan. The agricultural fields beyond the development site will be maintained as grass letting for other local farm businesses with no new buildings necessary. In short under this option agricultural activity at the farmstead itself will end. In that respect the proposed residential use will not be undermined by intense un-neighbourly farming activity at the site with the associated odour, noise, and traffic generation. General grazing and farming activity will remain in the surrounding area which is common to such a rural area and a lifestyle choice regarding residential amenity.
The applicant has also explained that the farmstead is currently let on an annual Farm Business Tenancy with a one year notice agreement. As the current tenant is aged above the usual retirement age the future of the tenanted farm business requires forward planning, hence this application for the option of residential conversion.
Design and Appearance
The application proposes the conversion of two agricultural barns to create two dwellings. Barn 1 is planned with four bedrooms and barn 2 with five bedrooms. The conversions are sensitively designed using traditional materials and timber joinery. Existing openings are to be used with additional windows and doors kept to a minimum. Additional light is provided with well proportioned conservation style rooflights. The conversions will retain the rural character of agricultural buildings and an acceptable level of privacy and residential amenity at the site will be achieved.
Private outside space and allocated parking and turning is made available.
The site is enclosed with a stock proof fence. Each barn conversion is to have a rendered block wall with sandstone coping
Page 39 as means of enclosure to private space.
Access and Parking
The site is accessed via the existing farm track at the junction with the public highway. Visibility is not ideal, however the Highway Authority raises no objection as the existing access already serves domestic traffic and the additional two dwellings are not seen as an over intensification. A condition for surfacing the first 10 metres of the track is recommended to protect the surface of the public highway.
Marketing
Policy HS6 requires an appropriate marketing exercise to discount the potential for re-use of the buildings for rural employment purposes. With the farm activity ceasing at the site and the farmhouse becoming a private dwelling an exception to this requirement is considered as follows.
It is judged that commercial use of the barns attached to the farmhouse and sharing a communal access would be inappropriate in terms of general residential amenity. Furthermore, the buildings are of traditional construction and internal arrangement not suited for modern agricultural practice or other rural employment.
Of more significance is the emerging Policy S31 of Allerdale Local Plan (Part1) Pre-Submission Draft which promotes such development in accordance with the NPPF. Criteria for appropriate barn conversions regards scale of development, access, parking, amenity and traffic with no reference to the need for marketing exercises of commercial re-use.
In short the emerging policy S31 and the NPPF are considered to outweigh the marketing criteria of Policy HS6 which has become outdated. The current policy criteria aims to achieve a high standard of conversion enhancing rural environment and alleviating pressure on greenfield sites and reducing the demand for new building in sensitive locations. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF is quoted ‘where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting’
Structural Survey
A qualified structural survey has been provided that does not suggest any major defects with the building that would affect the proposed conversion.
Page 40 Ecology
A qualified ecological report has been provided. The report concludes that the barns in general have moderate potential as a bat habitat but with no evidence of any species within the buildings. Foraging in the nearby areas identified. The report details the presence of nesting and breeding barn owls in Barn 2. A large nesting box is in place. The report recommends that an alternative nesting box should be located appropriately within 200 metres of the barn. A permanent accessible nesting space is also recommended within the barn and retained thereafter.
Such requirements are not uncommon to provide appropriate nesting opportunities within conversion schemes for barn owls and can be conditioned accordingly.
The modern buildings planned for demolition are not of interest in terms of habitat or protected species being unsuitable in materials and construction.
Natural England has not objected subject to the LPA’s consideration of their ‘standing advice’ regarding the requirements for appropriate ecological report on protected species. It is Officer’s opinion that there is no reason to doubt the findings and recommendations of the applicant’s qualified report.
Drainage
Surface water drainage is unchanged and planned to soakaways of the existing buildings.
Foul water drainage is planned to a Klargester Biotec package treatment plant. This will replace an existing septic tank used by the farmhouse with a capacity for the three resulting dwellings. Technical details and approximate siting of the system has been provided. A ‘clean water’ discharge will drain to the field adjacent by a series of herringbone pipes aided by gravity flow. The applicant owns extensive farmland around the site providing opportunities for suitable ground conditions for the discharge. Despite the lack of percolation tests it is unlikely that the system will not be effective. In any case the applicant has offered the alternative of discharge of ‘clean water’ to the nearby watercourse approximately 50m from the site. Also, the existing septic tank serving the farmhouse could be upgraded if necessary to provide drainage for all three dwellings.
In the avoidance of doubt foul drainage can be conditioned on this occasion with a number of options available. The Environment Agency has responded in writing with no objections.
Page 41 Archaeology
The County Council Archaeologist has identified the barns as being of architectural interest and recommended a standard recording exercise before the commencement of works.
Representations
The objection from the Parish Council has been accounted for within the report and not considered defensible reasons for refusal.
Local Finance Considerations
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
On balance, the proposed residential conversion provides a viable option for the future of the farmstead with the benefit of re-use and renovation of traditional rural buildings maintaining the character of the open countryside. The number of dwellings is proportional to the rural location. The rural economy is unaffected and surrounding land will remain in agricultural use with no unreasonable impact upon the proposed residential use.
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 in accordance with the following plans: B1180 P 01 - Existing and Site Location Plan B1180 P 02 - Proposed Barn 1 B1180 P 03 - Proposed Barn 2 B1180 P04 REV B - Proposed Block Plan (Amendment received 21/1/14) B1180 P 05 - Door and Window Details Sewage Treatment Proposals (amendment received (7/1/2014) Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of
Page 42 development. 3. Prior to the commencement of works, details of the method of foul water drainage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of any of the dwellinghouses hereby approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of non-mains drainage in accordance with Policy HS9 of the Allerdale Local Plan, First Alterations June 2006 (Saved). 4. The proposed development shall not be occupied until the five agricultural buildings as shown on the approved plan B1180P04 Rev B have been demolished and removed from the site. Reason : In the interests of visual and residential amenity in accordance with Policy EN7 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) Pre-Submission Draft May 2013. 5. The development shall be undertaken only in full accordance with the mitigation and recommendations within the Bat and Barn Owl Survey dated 28/6/2013 Ref. ET13BAT002.001. Reason : In the interests of safeguarding wildlife protected by law in accordance with Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved). 6. Before development commences, details of the design and siting of a barn owl nesting box within 200 metres of the site and an accessible nesting space for barn owls in Barn 2 shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. These measures shall be implemented as approved and in full accordance with the recommendations within Bat and Barn Owl Survey dated 28/6/2013 Ref ET13BAT002.001. Reason : In the interests of safeguarding wildlife protected by law in accordance with Policy EN32 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved). 7. Prior to the carrying out of any construction works the existing buildings occupying the site shall be recorded in accordance with a Level 2 survey as described by English Heritage's document 'Understanding Historic Buildings, A Guide to Good Recording Practice, 2006', and following its completion a copy of that survey shall be furnished to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that a permanent record is made of the buildings of architectural and historic interest prior to their alteration as part of the proposed development. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no external alterations or additions
Page 43 shall be made to any dwelling hereby approved and no buildings, extensions, gates, fences or walls (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be carried out within the curtilage of any dwelling without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority upon an application submitted to it. Reason: To preserve the character and appearance of the original building and its surroundings. 9. Before any of the dwellings hereby approved are occupied, the first 10 metres of the existing access shall be surfaced in tarmacadam or other cement bound surface. Reason : In order to protect the surface of the public highway in the interests of highway safety.
Proactive Stat ement
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.
Notes to Applicant:
Page 44
Page 45 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 46 Agenda Item 7
Allerdale Borough Council
2/2013/0848
Reference No: 2/2013/0848 Received: 02 December 2013 Proposed Change of use from A1 retail to A5 hot food takeaway Development: Location: 56 King Street Aspatria Wigton Applicant: Mr Jeff McMaster Edwin Thompson LLP
Drawing Numbers: SL1 Location Plan BP1 Block Plan T1036/06B Floor Plans and Elevations as Proposed
Constraints: Settlement Limit HS5 British Coal Area Adv Control Exclusion - Aspatria
Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved)
Policy RG6 - Control of Hot Food take-aways Policy CO18 - Setting of a Listed building Policy EN6 – Control of Polluting Developments.
Pre Submission Draft Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).
Policy S32 - (Safeguarding Amenity)
National Planning Policy Framework
Relevant Planning 2/2013/0696 Application Withdrawn - Change of use from A1 retail History: to A5 hot food takeaway
Representations: Aspatria Town Council – Objection. The town council raises concerns regarding the abundance of hot food takeaways within the area. The council raises Parking is a problem with double yellow lines outside of the property. Concerns that this is a residential area.
Cumbria Highways –Objection, remoteness from car parking area leading to parking on the highway.
Page 47
Environmental Health – No objections, subject to the inclusion of recommended conditions.
County Constabulary – No response received to date 16/01/2014.
Conservation Officer – No Objections
Fire Authority – No response received to date 16/01/2014.
There have been six letters of objection received concerning
• · The negative effect the takeaway will have on House Price.
• · The previous use of the property was a Pharmacy. Blood and other biological samples would have been stored there, this should stop food from been stored and prepared there.
• · Another hot food takeaway is not needed in Aspatria as there are other already established takeaways within the area.
• · There will be a potential for the proposal to increase the amount of litter within the vicinity of the site
• · The proposal will increase the amount of noise outside the site with people gathering outside the site especially late at night. The objector from the adjacent dwelling states that the proposed sound insulation will not be effective as the noise from the kitchen will still filter up to the objectors landing and bedrooms.
• · The proposal would increase the likelihood of parking on the Crookery adjacent to Springwell House. This would prevent people who live on Crookery from accessing their properties, but more importantly would prevent emergency vehicles such as fire engines getting down the lane.
• · The design and access statement suggests customers will use the Queens St car park. This is a good 4/5 minutes’ walk away and customers picking up meals will simply not walk from there.
• · Deliveries and customers will be forced to park on the
Page 48 double yellow lines
• · The gap between the site and the neighbouring land is too narrow to fit a wheelie bin through.
• · The proposal has the potential to attract vermin.
• · The proposal site is not within the town centre.
• · There is a Grade II listed building close the site, the proposal will have a negative effect on its setting.
• · The suggestion that approval should be given because the property is in a state of decline should be given no weight as it is the applicant who has choose to leave the property in a state of decline.
Report Site
The application site to the ground floor is a former pharmacy. Adjacent to the site is a post office on the ground floor with flats above on the first floor. There are double yellow lines to the front of the site. The site is within the Aspatria Town centre.
Policy
The proposal involves the change of use of a former pharmacy to a Chinese takeaway which is subject to the overarching principle of ‘achieving sustainable development’ within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The policy indicates that the planning system should provide an economic, social and environmental role. Decisions should be taken with a presumption in favour of sustainable development in that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF as a whole.
Policy EN6 of the Allerdale Local Plan seeks to prevent the approval of potentially polluting development in locations which would unacceptably adversely affect pollution sensitive development.
Policy RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan states that planning permission will only be granted for hot food takeaways where the proposal is located within an existing retail frontage, it is demonstrated that the effects of noise, smell and disturbance to adjacent property are within acceptable limits and satisfactory arrangements are proposed for car borne users where developments are located outside defined town centres.
Page 49 As policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan are not in conflict with those of the NPPF, it is considered acceptable to continue to apply some weight to these policies.
Proposal
The proposal is for the change of use of a vacant shop to a hot food takeaway at 56 King Street Station. The opening hours proposed will be between 16.30 - 22.30 everyday.
Assessment
Officers consider there to be two main planning issues. Firstly, the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties in relation to smells, noise and disturbance. Secondly, whether the proposal would adversely impact the Highway to the front of the site or parking elsewhere within the town centre.
Odour and Noise
Adjacent to the site is the residential property Springwell House which physically adjoins the site. It is officer’s opinion that Springfield House will experience an increase in noise from the proposed takeaway’s side elevation. However the applicant has proposed to install an acoustic insulation board with an air tight membrane to the adjoining wall. It is officer’s opinion that with this soundproofing the extent of additional noise caused will not be sufficient enough to warrant a reason for refusal. (Planning officer’s views are reinforced by the lack of objection subject to the conditioning of the sound insulation from the Council’s Environmental Health Officer.)
To the west is the post office with a residential unit to the rear and residential flat to the first floor. The extractor fan unit is to be installed to the western elevation of the proposal site. The proposed takeaways indicative electrostatic extract fan will be sited 3.5m away from the eastern side elevation of the post office and residential flat to the first floor. Officers consider that the bespoke use of an electrostatic fan rather than an extractor flue would substantially assist in reducing any additional noise and smell. The use of this fan is also considered acceptable to the Council’s Environmental Health Officer. Therefore despite the short 3.5m separation distance it is considered any odour impact from the fan (details reserved under condition) would be limited and would not constitute a reason for refusal.
Regarding objections concerning disturbance outside the takeaway it is officer’s opinion that subject to the proposed takeaway closing at 22.30, officers do not consider the noise
Page 50 associated with customers and their vehicles would be unusual or unreasonable in this town centre location. It must also be noted that other takeaways have been approved within Aspatria Town Centre.(including an existing takeaway on the opposite side of the A596)
The objectors concerns relating to the disposal of food waste and general waste especially with the lack of access from the side of site for refuse collection can be addressed by planning condition.
It is officers opinion therefore that the proposal would not have a significant adverse environmental effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties in relation to smells, noise and disturbance. Officers consider that the proposal would satisfy the objectives of saved Policy RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan.
Highways The second issue is whether the proposal would adversely impact the A596 highway frontage of the site or any wider impact on parking within the town centre. The existing shop frontage has double yellow lines. The site does not benefit any off street customer parking facilities. Alternative off street parking facilities are located on the lay-by fronting St Kentigans church (approx 65m ) and the public car park on Queen St. (approx 210m) Cumbria Highways have to date, not responded to this application. However, on the previous application (ref 2/2013/0696) for the same proposal Cumbria Highways wished to refuse the application on the remoteness of parking, as this would likely to result in parking on the highway in the vicinity of the site with consequent additional danger to all users of the road.
However, planning officers emphasise that parking in the immediate locality of the site is restricted by double yellow lines. The enforcement of these restrictions falls under the jurisdiction of the County Councils Highway and Police Authorities. Officers consider the alternative off street parking facilities are within short distance of the application site and therefore would adequately serve any highway needs of the proposed takeaway.
Nuisance Comments have been made that should the proposal be approved, it could lead to an increase in litter within the locality; have the potential to attract vermin due to dropped waste and food. There has also been a comment made that the property may be unsuitable for the preparation/ sale of food.
These are all considered to be issues which could be handled through separate legislation and controls should they occur.
Page 51
Affect on Listed buildings Regarding the impact of the proposal on the Grand II listed building Allerdale’s Conservation Officer has stated that the change of use would not affect the setting (or other aspects of character) of the listed church or no 58/60 King Street nearby, partly because there are no physical changes but also because there are no direct views to/from the listed buildings an this property. Planning officers’ agree with this view.
Taking all of the above into account the proposal is recommended for approval subject to the inclusion of planning conditions to safeguard residential amenity.
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: SL1 Location Plan BP1 Block Plan T1036/06B Floor Plans and Elevations as Proposed Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 and Section 91 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
3. The use hereby permitted shall not be open for customers outside the following operating hours: 16.30 to 22.30 hours Mondays to Sundays. Reason : To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy S32 (Safeguarding Amenity) of the Pre-Submission Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).
4. Before the use commences, details of the kitchen electrostatic extraction system to be installed including sound level details, noise control measures and odour abatement measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall be implemented as approved prior to the commencement of the use and retained for the lifetime of the use of the development. Reason : To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy S32 (Safeguarding Amenity) of the Pre-Submission Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).
Page 52
5. Before the use commences, full details of the arrangement for the storage and disposal of waste including hours of collection, waste receptacles and any waste carrier from the premises, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained for the lifetime of the use of the development. Reason : To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy S32 (Safeguarding Amenity) of the Pre-Submission Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).
6. Prior to the commencement of works details of proposed sound insulation works to the party wall between the proposed use and the neighbouring property Springwell House shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. All approved sound insulation schemes shall be fully implemented before the development is brought into use and retained at all times thereafter. Reason : To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy S32 (Safeguarding Amenity) of the Pre-Submission Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).
7. No deliveries to or from the premises shall be undertaken outside the hours of 0800 to 2000 on any day except Sunday when no deliveries shall take place before 10.00 am. All deliveries shall be made through the front doors. Reason : To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy S32 (Safeguarding Amenity) of the Pre-Submission Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).
8. Noise emanating from the premises shall not exceed NR35 when assessed at the location (as show on the attached noise monitoring plan) and measured and rated in accordance with BS 7445, parts 1, 2 and 3. Reason : To protect nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policies EN6 and RG6 of the Allerdale Local Plan Adopted 1999 (Saved) and Policy S32 (Safeguarding Amenity) of the Pre-Submission Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1).
Proactive Statement
Application Approved Without Amendment
Page 53 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.
Notes to Applicant:
Page 54
Page 55 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 56 Agenda Item 8
Allerdale Borough Council Planning Department
Appeal Decisions
Appeal Reference: APP/G0908/A/13/2189520
Planning Reference: 2/2011/0973
Proposed Development: Wind turbine Appeal Site: Brayton Park, Brayton, Wigton Applicant: Mr Malcolm Ashworth Type of Appeal: Written Representations
Date of Committee: 16 th October 2012
Officers’ Approval Recommendation: Development Panel Refusal Decision:
Inspector’s Decision: Appeal allowed
Appeal decision details
The development proposed the installation of a three bladed wind turbine (62m to tip), access and associated works. It would replace a two bladed turbine of the same height, granted on appeal in 2011, albeit the proposed turbine would have a wider girth.
Following advice from an independent consultant, the application was recommended for approval by Officers on the basis that the change from a two bladed model to a three bladed model was not considered to add significant harm. Members refused the application on the grounds that the amended turbine model, by virtue of its greater scale and design, would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality.
The Inspector concurred with the previous Inspector, who in assessing that turbine, opined that the approval at the appeal site of industrial buildings and the nearby tourism development at Brayton Park demonstrates that this is a landscape that can accommodate some development without causing undue harm. Moreover, the differences between the 2 turbines, in terms of visual impact, would be minor. Consequently, the effect of this proposal on the character and appearance of the landscape would be no greater, both individually and cumulatively, than that of the approved scheme at the appeal site.
He did not identify any significant cumulative harm, given separation distances.
Page 57
Further to objections from third parties, he also considered that the proposal under this scheme would not be materially different to the extent that it would be likely to have such a negative effect on the tourism development that visitors would be dissuaded from staying at the nearby chalets or using the golf course.
Conclusion Appeal allowed
Officer comments on the appeal decision
The appeal decision highlights that a change in turbine model alone would not give rise to significantly greater visual impacts sufficient to warrant refusal in a location where it had been previously established at appeal that turbine development could be accommodated without undue harm.
No costs application was made by the appellant.
Page 58 Agenda Item 9
Allerdale Borough Council Planning Department
Appeal Decisions
Appeal Reference: APP/G0908/ A/1 3/2190693
Planning Reference: 2/2012/0488
Proposed Development: Wind turbine Appeal Site: Land off Charity Lane, High Harrington, Workington Applicant: Mr David Reed Type of Appeal: Written Representations
Date of Committee: 13 th November 2012
Officers’ Refusal Recommendation: Development Panel Refusal Decision:
Inspector’s Decision: Appeal dismissed
Appeal decision details
The development proposed the installation of 1 no. wind turbine (55.6m to the hub, 79.6m to tip), access and associated works. The application was recommended for refusal by Officers on the grounds that the proposed turbine, by virtue of its site, scale and separation distance from Whinmill Farm would have a detrimental overwhelming and dominating impact on the visual amenity of its occupiers. Members supported this recommendation.
The proposed turbine was approx. 380m from Whinmill Farm, which has several windows in its south-western elevation facing towards the proposal. These windows serve a ground-floor sun lounge and two first-floor bedrooms, a landing and stairs that serve the bedrooms, and a ground-floor kitchen and office. Whilst vegetation may provide some screening of the lower part of the turbine, the Inspector considered that the turbine would form a very large element of the view, made more eye-catching by its motion. The proposed turbine would feature in the view from these windows; although slightly off-centre in the view it would be prominent and intrusive. It would be much more prominent than other built elements in the local landscape, such as the stationary electricity pylons and buildings, to which the appellant draws attention.
Page 59 He was not persuaded that the screening effect shown in the photomontage of the appellants Landscape and Visual Assessment would be achieved at the site in such a way as to satisfactorily shield sensitive receptors there.
He concluded that ‘the outlook from those domestic rooms is an important part of the visual amenity of the house and its residents ..it is clear to me that the scale and position of the turbine would be such that it would have a dominating and oppressive visual effect on residents of Whinmill Farm.
The merits of the proposal (its value in reducing greenhouse gas emissions) did not outweigh this harm.
Conclusion Appeal dismissed
Officer comments on the appeal decision
When considering the extent of harm to residential visual amenity, the appeal decision reinforces the need to consider not only the scale of proposed turbines and the separation to nearby dwellings, but also the orientation of those nearby dwellings, whether they contain habitable windows, and to what extent turbines will take up the field of view and be prominent within that view.
Page 60 Agenda Item 10
Allerdale Borough Council Planning Department
Appeal Decisions
Appeal Reference: APP/G0908/ A/12/2188888
Planning Reference: 2/2012/0706
Proposed Development: Wind turbine Appeal Site: Clea Mire, Westward, Wigton Applicant: E M Holliday Type of Appeal: Written Representations
Date of Committee: 13 th November 2012
Officers’ Refusal Recommendation: Development Panel Refusal Decision:
Inspector’s Decision: Appeal dismissed
Appeal decision details
The development proposed the installation of 1 no. wind turbine (30.5m to the hub), access and associated works. The application was recommended for refusal by Officers on the grounds that the proposed turbine, by reason of its scale and elevated location on an exposed hillside, was considered to represent a harmful intrusion into the wider landscape. A second reason for refusal related to the lack of information relating to any potential impact on Carlisle Airport.
A third reason for refusal was added at Development Panel relating to potential noise disturbance arising should the turbine operate beyond wind speeds of 12m/s.
Prior to the appeal, the refusal reason relating to aviation was resolved.
The Inspector noted the advice within the Landscape Character Guidance (LCG) that large scale wind energy, other vertical structures such as telecommunications masts, pylons and transmissions lines should be avoided in open and prominent areas where they could degrade the rural character of the area.
The Inspector noted that the proposal would occupy a prominent, elevated position that rises up from the coastal plain to the north and continues to rise towards the Lake District National Park and that views towards and from the appeal site would be expansive from
Page 61 most directions. He stated that although of moderate scale, the turbine would nevertheless be a very obvious tall feature on an exposed hillside. The SPD notes that a key limiting factor of this type of landscape is the open character whereby any development is likely to be widely visible, with only localised containment by relief or trees.
He notes the existence in the wider landscape of tall structures such as the television masts at Sandale and Brocklebank, and other turbines such as those at High Pow, many of these are situated within landscapes with different classifications where the capacity to accommodate such developments is greater or the developments pre-date the publication of the NPPF.
In the Inspectors judgement, the landscape within which the appeal site is situated would be sensitive to the type of change that the proposal would bring about because of its rolling, expansive nature. The exposed location of the appeal site would mean that the proposal would have a significant visual impact within this landscape. The SPD and LCG identify the local landscape as sensitive to wind turbine development in the Cumbrian context. Whilst they do not preclude all wind turbine development, he considered that the proposed turbine would be an incongruous intrusion into this landscape type, contrary to saved SP policy R44 and saved policies EN19 and EN25 of the adopted Allerdale Local Plan (LP).
In relation to potential noise disturbance, the Inspector was satisfied that this matter could be dealt with by way of condition restricting noise generation to specified levels relative to background noise. He saw no reason why such a condition could not be enforced.
Conclusion Appeal dismissed
Officer comments on the appeal decision
The Inspector largely concurred with the Officer assessment that such developments would be harmful to the landscape in prominent and elevated locations of higher sensitivity in the ‘Rural Fringe’ landscape classification.
With regards to noise, it is important to note that the Inspector felt that this issue could be controlled adequately by condition. Had this been the only issue, then refusal on such grounds rather than imposing an appropriate condition could have been construed as unreasonable behaviour by the Council.
Page 62 Agenda Item 11
Allerdale Borough Council Planning Department
Appeal Decisions
Appeal Reference: APP/G0908/A/13/2190813
Planning Reference: 2/2012/0753
Proposed Development: Wind turbine Appeal Site: Firs Farm, Crookdake Applicant: Mr Ray Fawkes Type of Appeal: Written Representations
Date of Committee: 11 th December 2012
Officers’ Approval Recommendation: Development Panel Refusal Decision:
Inspector’s Decision: Appeal allowed
Appeal decision details
The development proposed the installation of a single wind turbine (47m to tip), access and associated works.
The application was recommended for approval by Officers. Members refused the application on the grounds that the proposed turbine, by virtue of its site, size and design, in association with the existing/approved turbines at Hellrigg (Silloth), Langrigg, Westnewton, Tallentire Hill, Wharrels Hill (Bothel), High Pow (Bolton Low Houses), Brayton Park, Stepping Stones (Abbeytown), Flimby Brow and High Aketon would have a detrimental sequential cumulative impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding landscape when viewed from the A595 and A596 highway corridors.
In considering the turbine in isolation, the Inspector the noted that the landscape has the capacity to accommodate this scheme without significant harm to visual amenity or the character and appearance of the landscape.
With regard to cumulative impact, the Inspector noted existing schemes referred to in the Council’s decision, but he considered that the separation distances at around 10.2km Silloth, 4.8km Langrigg, 6.1km Westnewton, 10.3km Tallentire, 5.9km Bothel, 4.3km Bolton Low Houses and 880m High Aketon are such that the effect of those turbines and this proposal on the landscape would remain distinct.
Page 63
Other existing single wind turbines are located in a number of locations within approximately 5km of the appeal site with several others currently being considered at appeal. While the Inspector noted the concern that a number of these turbines would be seen from the local highway network including the A595 and A596, and accepting that there may be some locations within the surrounding area from where 2 or more of these turbines may be seen in particular views or in a sequence of views, he considered that in terms of their moderate scale and the separation distances between them, the proposed and existing turbines would not collectively become a significant or defining characteristic of the local area such that they would have a harmful effect on the overall experience of the landscape.
The low to moderate harm to the character and appearance of the landscape would equate to less than substantial harm under paragraph 134 of the NPPF, which would be outweighed by the acknowledged environmental and economic benefits.
Conclusion Appeal allowed
Officer comments on the appeal decision
The appeal emphasizes that when considering cumulative impact, both the scale of existing and proposed turbine development within the locality, and the separation distances involved are essential to establishing the degree to which turbines will be viewed as distinct elements in the landscape or as an accumulation. Further, the level of cumulative impact must become a significant or defining characteristic of the local area before it is likely to have a harmful effect on the overall experience of the landscape.
Reference is made to the appeal at land adjoining the airfield at Wiggonby/Great Orton (also reported), where the accumulation of turbine development is considered to have reached an unacceptable level.
Costs application
A costs application was made by the appellant. It alleged that the Council failed to take into account the additional information relating to visual impact and the officer’s professional judgement before reaching its decision.
The Inspector considered that the Council’s Statement of Case amply explained its objection to the proposal and included references to national and development plan policy as well as recent appeal decisions relating to a development which it considered to be comparable. The Council explained why it was considered that the proposal would cause significant harm to the landscape when its cumulative impact was considered in conjunction with nearby turbine developments. As such, sufficiently robust evidence was submitted to show that it did not apply its judgement in an unreasonable manner.
Page 64 Agenda Item 12
Allerdale Borough Council Planning Department
Appeal Decisions
Appeal Reference: APP/GO908/A/13/2189946
Planning Reference: 2/2012/0315
Proposed Development: Erection of a 67m single wind turbine Appeal Site: Land to the west of Goose Green Farm, Crookdake, Aspatria Applicant: Empirica Investments Ltd Type of Appeal: Written Representations
Date of Committee: Committee
Officers’ Approval Recommendation: Development Panel Refused for the following reason: Decision: The Local Planning Authority consider that the proposed turbine, by virtue of its site, size and design, in association with the other existing/approved/pending applications for turbines at Prospect House (High Scales), Crossrigg Farm (Westnewton), Stubsgill Farm (Yearngill), Stones Farm (Abbeytown), Firs Farm (Crookdake) and High Aketon (Wigton) would have a detrimental sequential cumulative impact on the visual amenity of its location and the surrounding landscape within the open countryside contrary to Policies EN19 and EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan (saved) and Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan.
Inspector’s Decision: Appeal allowed.
Costs application dismissed.
Appeal decision details
The inspector considered the main issues in the appeal are:
(i) The effects of the proposed wind turbines on the character and appearance of the landscape, including any cumulative impact, and whether any harm, in the light of the development plan, would be outweighed by the national objective of promoting renewable energy generation.
Page 65 Reasons
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states a presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14. Paragraph 93 of the NPPF makes clear that the provision of renewable energy infrastructure is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.
The NPPF states that even comparatively small scale projects can make a significant contribution to meeting national need.
Character and appearance
The turbine would be situated in an agricultural, located in the countryside, around 1km from the hamlet of Crookdake. A railway line and the A596 are situated around 230m and 550m to the north respectively.
The area around the appeal site is characterised by undulating, agricultural land with hedgerow boundaries interspersed with trees. An area of woodland lies to the south. Cumbria County Council’s Landscape Classification described the wider area as “5a – Ridge and Valley”.
There are no special landscape designations applicable to the area and while there are no hard and fast rules about how suitable areas for renewable energy should be identified, the inspector notes the adopted Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), identifies the 5a area as being of moderate landscape capacity suggesting that small scale wind farm groups may be acceptable.
Although of a modest scale, the proposed height would nevertheless result in the turbine being a noticeable feature in the wider landscape. It would be seen in views from the surrounding road network and from public footpaths. In this regard, a Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVA) was submitted including a series of photomontages. The inspector notes that in some of the views the turbine would be partly obscured by vegetation and landform, given its location within a valley area with woodland cover.
In the inspector’s judgement, the separation distance between the roads/footpaths, the railway line and the turbine, allied to it’s siting on low lying land next to mature trees within a landscape containing other man-made structures, would be sufficient to reduce its visual impact. These factors would also serve to ensure that the proposal would be in scale with the expansive landscape such that it would have a low to moderate visual impact from nearby vantage points and an insignificant impact from further afield.
With regard to cumulative impact, the LVIA was revised to assess the cumulative effects of the proposal in conjunction with operational, approved and submitted schemes in the general area. The separation distances to the wind farms are such that the effect of those turbines and this proposal on the landscape would remain distinct.
Several other existing single wind turbines are located within approximately 1 to 4 km of the appeal site, with several others being considered at appeal. While there may be some locations within the surrounding area from which 2 or more of these turbines may be seen in particular views, or in a sequence of views, the inspector considers that in
Page 66 terms of their moderate scale and the separation distances between them, the proposed and existing turbines would not collectively become a significant or defining characteristic of the local area such that they would have a harmful effect on the overall experience of the landscape.
Other matters
An assessment of noise generation and shadow flicker has been submitted which demonstrates that the turbine would not harmfully change the living conditions of the occupiers of the nearest dwellings. On this basis, the inspector finds the proposal is unlikely to cause significant noise or shadow flicker nuisance to any nearby residents.
Bramblewood, Low Row Farm and Sandraw Farm are the closest dwellings to the proposal ( the Council estimates within around 450-500m), with other dwellings situated around 1.1km to the west and at the junction of the A596 and Low Row, around 1.2km to the north. In the inspectors judgement, the moderate scale of the proposal, the orientation of some of these dwellings and factors such as the distance, screening effects of the intervening landform, woodland planting, hedgerows and specimen trees, buildings and other infrastructure would mean that the proposal would not have an overbearing effect when viewed from these dwellings and would not harmfully change the living conditions of the occupiers in respect of outlook.
Conclusion
The proposal would contribute to the generation of renewable energy which would assist in meeting national and regional targets that seek to reduce carbon emissions in order to tackle climate change. It would also make a contribution to the diversification of the farm as the farmer would receive an annual income from the siting of the turbine on his land, supporting rural enterprise and economic activity.
The overall conclusion is that the low to moderate harm to the character and appearance of the landscape would be outweighed by the acknowledged environmental and economic benefits. The development plan provides in-principle support for renewable energy and the NPPF at paragraph 98 recognises that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
In coming to this decision, the inspector has had regard to the Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament on Local Planning and Onshore Wind and the DCLG Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy which followed in July 2013. The inspector has also hard regard to the effect of the revocation of the Regional Strategy but in the light of the facts in this case the revocation does not alter his conclusion that the appeal should be allowed.
Officer comments on the appeal decision
When considering the impact a turbine will have on the character of the landscape including cumulative impacts Members and officers should take into account the separation distances between the proposed turbines and other existing turbines. This impact should then be carefully weighed against the national policies that highlights there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Furthermore the benefits of
Page 67 the proposal in providing renewable energy should be outweighed against the harm that may result from the proposal.
Page 68 Agenda Item 13
Allerdale Borough Council Planning Department
Appeal Decisions
Appeal Reference: APP/GO908/A/13/2192507
Planning Reference: 2/2012/0682
Proposed Development: Erection of a single wind turbine with a maximum blade tip of 62 metres and associated infrastructure including creating a new access track (approximately 78m in length), a crane pad (measuring approximately 20cm by 22cm) and an equipment housing cabinet Appeal Site: Land adjoining airfield, Wiggonby, Wigton Applicant: Windberry Energy Operations Ltd Type of Appeal: Written Representations
Date of Committee: 14 May 2013
Officers’ Refuse Recommendation:
Development Panel Refuse for the following grounds: Decision: 1. The adverse and significant harm of this prominent development to the character and quality of the landscape, either individually or cumulatively as part of a group of wind turbines in the locality that include: • The nearby 6 x 68m high (blade tip) turbines of the Great Orton Windfarm; • A recently approved 74m turbine across the administrative boundary inside Carlisle City (12/0345); • One x 20m hub 1km to the north west at Park House Aikton; • Two x 36.4m to hub height turbines 2.26km to the south west at Thornby Villa; • One x 34m to tip turbine at Outerby 1.47km to the north; • One x 34m turbine 2.9km to the west at Moordyke; • One x turbine 27.3m in height to tip 2.8km to the south west at Greyrigg; are considered to outweigh the benefits of the proposal. The addition of a further turbine within this
Page 69 locality would add unacceptably to the extent that turbines are becoming a recurrent and incongruous element in this landscape and within views experience within the locality and wider landscape of the coastal plain. Such a development is therefore contrary to the requirements of Chapter 11 of the NPPF in respect of conserving and enhancing the natural environment; The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document July 2007 in respect of the inability of the landscape to accept further wind turbine development and; saved policies EN19 and EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan, which seek to protect and enhance landscape within the open countryside.
2. The Local Planning Authority consider that insufficient information has been submitted to allow Carlisle Airport, as statutory consultee, to satisfactorily assess matters of airport safeguarding.
Inspector’s Decision: Appeal dismissed.
Appeal decision details
The inspector considered the main issues in the appeal to be:
(i) First, the effect of the proposed wind turbine, both individually and cumulatively with other existing wind turbines in the area, on the character and quality of the landscape and (ii) Second, whether any harm is outweighed by the benefits of the proposal
Reasons
The first issues – the character and quality of the landscape
The proposed wind turbine would be located towards the north-east corner of a field and close to a country road that loops around the west corner of Great Orton Airfield, once a WWII airfield but now the home of Watchtree Nature Reserve. About 0.8km to the south of the location of the proposed turbine is the linear village of Wiggonby about 2.5km to the east is the village of Great Orton. The villages and the former airfield are within undulating farmed countryside to the north of the A596 and the A595 in north Cumbria. The area within which the turbine would be located has a tranquil character and is attractive. It is not a dramatic landscape, like the landscape that will be appreciated by those who reside in it and by those who visit the area.
The proposed wind turbine, which would have a blade tip height of about 62metres, would be only about 75 metres from the nearest country road. In views north and west from this road, given its proximity and height, the turbine would be an intrusive feature that would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appreciation of the landscape. In these views a significant feature of the landscape would be to the rear
Page 70 because the airfield is home not just to the nature reserve but to a development of six wind turbines. These turbines are 68 metres high to top blade tip, are almost in a line, and are regularly spaced.
The existing Great Orton wind farm dominates the countryside area between Great Orton and Wiggonby and is visible not just from these villages but from country roads and footpaths in the area. The erection of the turbines has resulted in the creation of a wind farm landscape where the turbines are the dominate features. The turbines are, in themselves, large and prominent features but their spinning blades also draw the eye and are seriously intrusive in views of the wind farm in distances across the landscape up to 2 kms.
The existing turbines are intrusive and prominent in the landscape but they are, given their regular spacing about 250 metres apart, uniform height, near linear arrangement and consistent form, a planned and coherent development. The proposed turbine would be 800 metres to the west of the nearest existing turbine at the former airfield. It would be slightly different in height and form, would not be in line with the existing arrangements of turbines, and would not continue the regular spacing of the existing turbines.
The existing six turbines and the proposed single turbine would all be visible in views from the country roads to the south, west and north of the former airfield and in views from in and around Wiggonby to the south-west. In other views the proposed turbine would be visible in close proximity to one or more of the six existing turbines. The proposed turbine would compromise, and would be awkwardly juxtaposed to, the existing planned wind turbine development that is the principal feature of the landscape between Greta Orton and Wiggonby.
Apart from the six turbines at the former airfield that are other, albeit smaller, turbines in the area, all within 3km of the location of the proposed turbine.
The proposed turbine would add to the number of turbines in the vicinity of the former airfield and would contribute to an impression that there is already an over-concentration of turbines in the area. The proposed turbine, individually and, more importantly, cumulatively with existing turbines, would have a significant adverse effect on the character and quality of the landscape in the vicinity of the former airfield.
The second issue
Farming and other activities, such as an increasing reliance on motorised transport in the last hundred years, have contributed to changes in the global climate that are having a detrimental effect on, amongst other things, the landscape. The landscape in Allerdale is not immune to the effects of climate change. Flooding is a serious issue and will have affected Allerdale and the lives of those who live within the area. This one effect on climate change causes erosion of the landscape and altered how the landscape can be farmed and used.
Moving towards a low carbon future is at the heart of Government policy that seeks to meet the challenge of climate change. In paragraph 93 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) it is stated that ‘Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to
Page 71 secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure’. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that there is “ a presumption in favour of sustainable development ” and that for decision making this means granting planning permission unless “ any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits ”.
Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan states that “Proposals which would cause unacceptable harm to the character of the landscape will not be permitted unless an overriding need for the development can be demonstrated”. The policy, though it predates the publication of the NPPF, recognises that need or benefit of a proposal can outweigh the harm it would cause. There is, therefore a balance to be struck between the harm and benefit of a renewable energy proposal.
Conclusion
If the proposed turbine was to be a singular feature in the landscape the harm it would cause to the character and quality of the landscape would be outweighed by its renewable energy benefit. However, it would not be a singular feature but be added to many existing similar features in the near vicinity and in the wider area. There is already an over-concentration of wind turbines in the countryside area that encompasses Wiggonby and Great Orton and the proposed turbine would, cumulatively with existing turbines, have a significant adverse effect on the character and quality of the landscape. This significant adverse effect, despite the encouragement provided by paragraph 98 of the NPPF, is not outweighed by the renewable energy benefit of the proposed wind turbine.
Officer comments on the appeal decision
The appeal decision makes no reference to the Council’s second reason for refusal that relates to the impact on aviation. However, as part of the appeal process the applicant carried out and submitted an aviation assessment as required by Carlisle Airport that demonstrated the proposal was acceptable on aviation grounds.
Page 72 Agenda Item 14
Allerdale Borough Council Planning Department
Appeal Decisions
Appeal Reference: Appeal Ref: APP/G0908/A/13/2198462
Planning Reference: 2/2012/0838
Proposed The development proposed is residential development for 8 Development: dwellings including 2 affordable dwellings. Appeal Site: Shawbank Brow, Dean, Workington, CA14 4TJ Applicant: The appeal is made by J.J. Lattimer Type of Appeal: Planning
Date of Committee: Delegated
Officers’ Refuse Recommendation: Development Panel NA Decision:
Inspector’s Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issues
The Inspector considered the main issues are:
• The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • Its effect on the living conditions of neighbours, with regard to noise and disturbance; and • Whether the proposal would be consistent with the principles of sustainable development, having regard to current planning policy and guidance.
Village Character
The appeal site comprises 0.78 hectares of grazing land in open countryside to the north east of Dean, a small rural village. The appeal site is bounded by two sides be existing development, with open countryside to the other sides. An access road is proposed from the public highway. This would pass between and close to, two dwellings to one side, William’s Croft and Greenrigg, and one dwelling to the other, Irewen.
The Inspector noted that the properties were mostly ribbon development and that the village was spread across a wide area in the form of ribbon development, largely adjacent to, or set back from, the two roads of Shawbank Brow and Fifkettle Brow. It was
Page 73 noted the occasional very small cluster of properties extending away from these main village roads, but such clusters were very much the exception rather than the norm.
Views from public highways are generally to houses with open fields and/ or agricultural buildings behind. This affords Dean, a notably green, pleasant, open, spacious and distinctly rural character.
The Inspector noted that to construct 8 dwellings in a cul-de-sac, which would extend between the appeal site and Shawbank Brow would introduce a pattern unlike any other in the village, effectively creating a double row of houses. The Inspector considered that the proposal would lead to an uncharacteristic urbanising effect, of a scale and pattern that would be out of keeping with the village’s rural character. The development consequently would appear incongruous, to those attributes which make a positive contribution to the established character of the area.
Living Conditions
The Inspector noted that the access road would pass very close the three existing dwellings named above and the relatively narrow gap between Irewen and William’s Croft, in particular, would lead to passing cars causing significant disturbance to the occupiers of those properties. Noise could arise from car engines, car radios, or from headlights and cars passing in front of windows. Further issues of noise and disturbance would also arise as a result of the access road passing behind existing rear gardens. Whilst a landscaped area is proposed, the Inspector noted that this would not prevent disturbance from cars manoeuvring, from the opening and closing of car doors, from headlights, car radios, or from other general activities associated with the journeys undertaken be the occupants of the 8 houses, or from the movement of service vehicles. The effects of the development would as a result of proximity, effect the peace and quiet of the rear gardens, in which occupiers could reasonably expect. The number of car journeys would be likely to be significant and that car journeys could take place at any time day or night. The proposed development would be detrimental to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regards to noise and disturbance.
Sustainable Development
The local bus service is only weekly, other than the school bus and that people in the village are generally car reliant. Also given the absence of public footpaths short journeys e.g. to the village primary school could be likely to be made by car.
It was noted by the Inspector, the proposed development would increase the population of Dean and this could help support local services. As a ‘Limited Growth Village’ in the Local plan, there is some policy support for small scale development in the area. The Inspector concluded that the lack of sustainable transport weighed against sustainable growth of the village as did the harm as outlined above.
Other Matters
The Inspector argued shortfall in housing land supply is not sufficient reason in this case, to allow the development proposed versus the appearance of the area, and maintaining the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.
Page 74 Agenda Item 15
Allerdale Borough Council Planning Department
Appeal Decisions
Appeal Reference: APP/GO908/A/13/2189826
Planning Reference: 2/2012/0603
Proposed Development: Erection of a 67m single wind turbine Appeal Site: Land to east of Prospect House, High Scales Applicant: Empirica Investments Ltd Type of Appeal: Written Representations - appeal on non-determination
Date of Committee: Committee
Officers’ Refuse Recommendation: Development Panel Recommend refusal for the following reasons: Decision: 1. The proposal, by reason of its siting and elevated level, would constitute a prominent and incongruous feature within the landscape, and would cause un acceptable individual and cumulative harm to the landscape character and appearance of the locality. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016(Saved).
2. In the absence of detail to provide contrary, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposal will not have a harmful visual impact on sensitive residential receptors namely Saymour Farm House Wigton CA7 0BX, Corner House Scales CA& 3NQ, Meadowlands Scales CA7 3NQ, Maple House Scales CA7 3NL, The Arches Scales CA7 3NL, Shamara Scales CA7 3NL, Carita Scales CA7 3NL, contrary to Policy R44 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (saved).
3. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate the visual impact of the development on the setting of the Grade II Listed Building, Prospect House contrary to Policy CO10 of the Allerdale Local Plan, June 2006 (Saved) and Policy E38 of the Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Saved).
Page 75
Inspector’s Decision: Appeal allowed subject to conditions.
Appeal decision details
The inspector considered the main issues in the appeal are:
The effect of the proposed wind turbine on the character and appearance of the landscape, the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby dwellings in respect of any loss of outlook and the setting of Prospect House, a Grade II Listed Building; and whether any harm, in the light of the development plan, would be outweighed by the national objective of promoting renewable energy generation.
Reasons
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states a presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14. Paragraph 93 of the NPPF makes clear that the provision of renewable energy infrastructure is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.
The NPPF states that even comparatively small scale projects can make a significant contribution to meeting national need.
Character and appearance
The proposal would stand around 45m tall to the turbine with a blade tip height of around 67m and would include a concrete foundation, an area of hardstanding and a sub- station. It would be located in the countryside within a large arable field. This is bounded by mature hedgerows containing a number of trees. A small copse of conifer and deciduous trees is located in the corner of the field, next to the A596. The copse contains 2 no. telecoms masts and stands between the appeal site and Prospect House. The proposal would be situated around 64m from an unclassified road, around 125m from the A596 and around 550m from a railway line.
The area around the appeal site is characterised by a series of ridges and valleys that rise gently towards the limestone fringes of the Lakeland Fells and well managed, regular shaped medium to large pasture fields. Cumbria County Council’s Landscape Classification described the wider area as “5a – Ridge and Valley”.
There are no special landscape designations applicable to the area and while there are no hard and fast rules about how suitable areas for renewable energy should be identified, the inspector notes the adopted Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), identifies the 5a area as being of moderate landscape capacity suggesting that small scale wind farm groups may be acceptable.
Although of a modest scale, the proposed height would nevertheless result in the turbine being a noticeable feature in the wider landscape. Concern has been raised that it would be situated near the summit of a ridge which is at a higher level than the surrounding landscape. It would be seen in views from the surrounding road network and from public
Page 76 footpaths. In this regard, a Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVA) was submitted including a series of photomontages. The inspector notes that in some of the views the turbine would be partly obscured by vegetation and landform although the Council claims that some misleading views were selected to take in obscured views of the proposal.
In the inspectors judgement, while public views of the proposal would be possible from sections of the A596 and nearby roads as well as the footpath which passes around 600 metres from the appeal site, the impact of the proposal in these views would be moderated by its modest scale, separation distances with the roads/footpaths and the railway line, the undulating landform and screening provided by trees and hedges, and the existence nearby of pylons and masts. These factors would fragment the views towards the proposal such that it would have a low to moderate visual impact from nearby vantage points and an insignificant impact from further afield.
With regard to cumulative impact, there are several operational, approved and submitted schemes in the general area. The separation distances to the wind farms are such that the effect of those turbines and this proposal on the landscape would remain distinct.
Several other existing single wind turbines are located within approximately 1 to 4 km of the appeal site, with several others being considered at appeal. While a number of these turbines would be seen from the local highway network including the A595 and A596, and accepting that there may be other locations within the surrounding are from where 2 or more of these turbines may be seen in particular views or in a sequence of views, the inspector considers that in terms of their moderate scale, the separation distances between them and the intervening topography, the proposed and existing turbines would not collectively become a significant or defining characteristic of the local area such that they would have a harmful effect on the overall experience of the landscape.
Outlook
Concern was raised that the proposal would harmfully change the outlook from several properties. The inspector has assessed the properties listed in the reason for refusal. The distance between the properties and the proposed turbine, orientation of dwellings, vegetation and topography have all been considered.
Against this background, the inspector considers that the effect of the proposal, both individually and cumulatively in conjunction with other existing and proposed turbines in the wider area, would not harmfully change the outlook of these dwellings to the extent that it would be dominated by views of wind turbines.
Setting of Prospect House
Prospect House is a Grade II Listed Building. It stands around 470m from the appeal site with the A596 and a copse of trees containing 2 no. radio masts on between. The NPPF defines the setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which it is experienced. The extent is not fixed any may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset; may affect the ability to appreciate that significance; or may be neutral.
Page 77 Having special regard to the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings, where those settings would be affected by the proposed development, the inspector considers that the changes that have occurred in the immediate environs of Prospect House, such as the erection of stark modern agricultural buildings and the presence of large pylons, have compromised its setting.
In the inspectors judgement, when seen in the context of the agricultural buildings, the road, the pylons and the masts which immediately surround the listed building and given the intervening distance and planting, the proposal although visible, would not have a major impact on the setting of the heritage asset.
Other matters
An assessment of noise generation and shadow flicker has been submitted which demonstrates that the turbine would not harmfully change the living conditions of the occupiers of the nearest dwellings. On this basis, the inspector finds the proposal is unlikely to cause significant noise or shadow flicker nuisance to any nearby residents.
A number of queries have been raised by Bromfield Parish Council and FORCE concerning a consultation process on the intention to establish a new power line through Cumbria and the length of time an anemometer was in position before the application for this proposal was lodged. However, given the power line route is at the consultation stage and no substantive evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the appeal site would not be in a suitable location in terms of the available wind resource, the inspector does not consider these to be sufficient reasons for withholding planning permission.
Conclusion
The proposal would contribute to the generation of renewable energy which would assist in meeting national and regional targets that seek to reduce carbon emissions in order to tackle climate change. It would also make a contribution to the diversification of the farm as the farmer would receive an annual income from the siting of the turbine on his land, supporting rural enterprise and economic activity.
The overall conclusion is that the low to moderate harm to the character and appearance of the landscape and the negligible effect on the setting of the heritage asset which would equate to less than substantial harm under paragraph 134 of the NPPF, would be outweighed by the acknowledged environmental and economic benefits. The development plan provides in-principle support for renewable energy and the NPPF at paragraph 98 recognises that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
In coming to this decision, the inspector has had regard to the Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament on Local Planning and Onshore Wind and the DCLG Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy which followed in July 2013. The inspector has also hard regard to the effect of the revocation of the Regional Strategy but in the light of the facts in this case the revocation does not alter his conclusion that the appeal should be allowed.
Page 78 Officer comments on the appeal decision
When considering the impact a turbine will have on the character of the landscape including cumulative impacts Members and officers should take into account the separation distances between the proposed turbines and other existing turbines. This impact should then be carefully weighed against the national policies that highlights there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Furthermore the benefits of the proposal in providing renewable energy should be outweighed against the harm that may result from the proposal.
Page 79 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 80 Agenda Item 16
Allerdale Borough Council Planning Department
Appeal Decisions
Appeal Reference: APP/G0908/A/13/220183
Planning Reference: 2/2013/0245
Proposed Development: Rsidential Development Appeal Site: Land adjacent to Cockermouth RUFC Lorton Road Applicant: Rockford Holdings Type of Appeal: Written Representations
Date of Committee: 2nd July 2013
Officers’ Approval Recommendation: Development Panel Refusal Decision: 1. The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the provision of local affordable housing cannot be viably achieved at the application site contrary to Para 7,17,19,47,50, 54 and 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Inspector’s Decision: Appeal dismissed Appeal for Costs Part Allowed
Appeal decision details
The refusal of planning permission was essentially on the grounds that the Council judged that the provision of affordable housing outweighed the improved sports facilities and that the financial viability assessment in that respect was flawed.
Contrary to the appellants case the Inspector considered that the council had submitted demonstrable evidence to demonstrate that a local affordable housing need existed and was an identified problem in the area.
However the Inspector considered this balance of planning gain at the site and accepted the findings of the applicants’s financial viability. He made reference to the guidance within the NPPF and resolved that the application could not be resisted on the lack of affordable housing. The Inspector was not convinced that the removal or reduction in sports provision could provide an element of affordable housing due to the lack of evidence from the Council regarding quantity and quality of sports provision and with no qualified assessment of the advantages or disadvantages to the community balanced against affordable housing provision.
Page 81
The Inspector also attached significant weight to Sports England's consultation reply and the previous Inspectors decision which supported the provision and enhancement of the existing leisure details as encouraging the well being of the community. He considered the delivery of such leisure facilities, in the policy context, were also backed up within the recent National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) document.
The inspector attached a lot of importance to the NPPF policy guidance on the viability of development proposals which he considered the appellants proposal complied with in demonstrating whether the proposal could be deliverable.
Therefore overall he concluded the appeal proposal did not conflict with either national or local plan policies
However applicant had indicated that a completed signed s106 would be submitted during the appeal to secure the future maintenance of the surface water drainage and public open space, but during its latter stages the agent advised that two interested parties to the legal agreement had declined to sign it until any consent had been granted.
The Inspector concurred that an agreement was essential and needed (reflecting the previous dismissed appeal decision) and that it could not be alternatively secured by a planning condition as there remained an element of uncertainty that it could be delivered.
The reason for the appeals dismissal therefore alternatively solely related to the lack of a commitment to providing a future maintenance agreement of open space, children’s play space and surface water drainage under a Section 106 agreement.
Costs appeal decision details
The Inspector has awarded a partial award of costs. This is regarding the unreasonableness of the Council’s decision and reasons for refusal.
The Inspector has criticised that the financial viability assessment details were not fully reported and withheld from Members where a procedure exists to allow discussion at the meeting with members of the public and press absent.
The reasoning regarding affordable housing outweighing sports provision was considered unreasonable by the Inspector with regard to its absence from any reporting or debate during previous applications.
Little weight appeared to have been given to Sport England’s comments who were very much in favour of the sports facility improvements.
The reasons for refusal based upon the NPPF were considered vague and of little applicability.
The Inspector decided that the appellant’s claim for costs should exclude costs associated to the preparation of a S106 agreement for future site maintenance. The
Page 82 potential approval of the application rested on the signing of such an agreement which was therefore ultimately required in any case.
Conclusion Appeal dismissed. Costs appeal part allowed
Officer comments on the appeal decision
Despite the dismissal on the grounds of future site maintenance being secured, the Inspector clearly recognised that the site was sustainable. The financial viability details discounted the provision of affordable housing with no proven evidence that sports facility improvement was outweighed.
Page 83 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 84