DEVELOPMENT CONTROL and REGULATION COMMITTEE 30 March 2010 a Report by the Head of Environment ______

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 30 March 2010 A Report by the Head of Environment ______

Application No. 2/08/0788

Applicant BT Plc. ______

PROPOSAL Construction of four wind turbines, ancillary equipment and on site infrastructure;

Threapland Lees Farm, Threapland, nr Aspatria

RECOMMENDATION

1.1 To raise an objection to the proposal. It is contrary to saved Policies R44, E34, and E37 of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan and the development principles of the Cumbria Sub Regional Spatial Strategy due to its significant negative effect on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area and the setting of the Lake District National Park, both individually, and cumulatively with other wind energy schemes.

2 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The development site is located around 500m to the north of Threapland and 1km to the west of Bothel. The site is agricultural land. The Lake District National Park is approximately 1.2km south west of the site, and the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is approximately 7.5km to the north west.

2.2 The scheme involves the construction of 4 wind turbines, up to 125m high to blade tip, each with capacity of 3MW. It would provide a total maximum ‘installed capacity’ of up to 12MW. This could generate over 31,000 MW hours/yr of electricity and provide electricity to meet the needs of around 6,700 homes1. The turbines would be painted a light semi-matt light grey or off white colour.

2.3 Access to the site is proposed along the minor road that links Threapland with the A595, 250m north of Threapland Lees Farm. 5m wide access tracks would be constructed to connect with each turbine.

2.4 The proposal also includes a single storey substation and control building, sited at the south east corner of the site, 80m anemometer mast and crane hardstandings beside each turbine.

2.5 The scheme proposes to generate electricity for approximately 25 years, after which the scheme would be decommissioned, or a new application could be submitted to re- power the site. The proposal would be connected to the Aspatria-Wigton 33kV line, around 5km north of the site.

2.6 The site lies in a transitional landscape. Part of the site falls within Landscape Character Sub Type 5a – Lowland – Ridge and Valley and part lies in Sub Type 12b – Higher Limestone – Rolling Fringe. The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document identifies both of these sub types as having a capacity to accommodate schemes of 3-5 turbines, or exceptionally up to 6-9 turbines.

2.7 This site is located 200m to the north west of an operational wind energy scheme. This comprises 8 turbines that are considerably smaller than those proposed on this site. Their overall height to blade tip is 76m.

3 REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 The Local County Councillor has received letters of concern relating to the close proximity of the turbines to properties in Plumbland. Allerdale Borough Council has received 786 letters of objection, 3 letters of support and 2 petitions against the scheme.

3.2 Allerdale Borough Council consults the County Council with regard to our views against saved Structure Plan and other policy. The County Council is not the decision making body for this proposal. As a result we do not consult with other bodies or

1 4,700kwh per year is the generally accepted average household electricity consumption. individuals. Allerdale Borough Council does this as the decision making body. Its officers will take account of all the comments received from other consultees when determining the application.

4 STRATEGIC ISSUES

4.1 The application has been assessed as to whether it would conflict with or prejudice the implementation of those policies that are contained within the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan (JSP) 2001 – 2016 and have been saved to the North West Regional Spatial Strategy (adopted 30 September 2008). The application has also been assessed against the Cumbria Strategic Partnership’s Sub Regional Spatial Strategy (SRSpS).

4.2 The key issues raised by this application are:

Whether the development creates a significant detrimental effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage [saved JSP policies E35, E37, E38 and R44 and SRSpS Development Principles]. Whether there is an unacceptable level of cumulative impact due to its proximity to other operational and consented wind energy developments [saved JSP policy R44]. Whether the development creates significant adverse effects on local amenity, the local economy, highways, aircraft operations or telecommunications [saved JSP policy R44]. Whether the renewable energy contribution and other social, environmental and economic benefits of the proposal outweigh any adverse effects [saved JSP policy R44].

4.3 Additional guidance on the provision of wind energy developments in Cumbria is contained in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document. This was adopted by this Council in September 2007 and by Allerdale Borough Council in January 2008. This includes a detailed Landscape Capacity Assessment which indicates the potential capacity of different landscape areas to support wind energy development. This has been developed to enable a consistent and holistic approach to be taken when considering the effects of wind energy development on the distinctive and, often, high quality landscape character of Cumbria.

4.4 Decisions also need to be taken in light of the adopted North West Regional Spatial Planning Strategy. Policy EM17 covers renewable energy and includes indicative capacity targets for renewable energy generation in the region. When considering applications, decisions should be taken that encourage acceptable development that would contribute towards these targets and that help to mitigate the causes of climate change and reduce the consumption of finite natural resources.

4.5 The Environmental Statement (ES) submitted with the application covers a wide range of potential impacts including those that relate to the main policy issues outlined above. This has been considered in detail to help assess the impact of the proposal.

Landscape and Visual Impacts

Landscape Character

4.6 The site lies partly within landscape character sub type 5a – Lowland – Ridges and Valleys and partly in sub type 12b Higher Limestone – Rolling Fringe (Cumbria Landscape Classification 1995). The site is situated on the north west flank of Wharrels Hill. The hill forms a transitional landscape between the ridge and valley farmed landscape found towards the coast and the rolling limestone hills that rise up into the Lake District National Park. The lowland area is characterised by a patchwork of large, regular shaped open fields of improved pasture bounded by ditches, wire fences and some low hedges. Small shelterbelts of woodland and coniferous plantations are scattered through the lowland landscape and several small villages can be found at the foot of the ridges. Streams flow from the rolling fringe landscapes to create small valleys around Wharrels Hill. In the rolling fringe the landscape is generally open, fields are large and mainly pastoral and villages are scattered along hill tops and in valleys. The area is punctuated by large coniferous plantations, otherwise tree cover is sparse. An operational wind energy scheme comprising eight turbines forms a prominent feature and focal point. Electricity pylons are a recurring feature in the landscape to the south of the site. The Solway Firth and the Lakeland Fells form contrasting backdrops the site and landscape.

4.7 The site itself reflects several of the landscape characteristics of sub type 5a and 12b. It is generally open in character comprising medium to large size improved agricultural fields bounded by a matrix of low hedges and fences. Land rises steeply south west toward the telecoms tower and the summit of Wharrels Hill and the village of Bothel, and more gently to the villages of Threapland and Plumbland and the Ellen Valley. Trees are absent.

4.8 A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment forms part of the Environmental Statement. This identifies the landscape character as set out above.

4.9 The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), 2007, identifies both landscape sub types as having moderate sensitivity and a moderate capacity to accommodate wind energy development. It suggests that the landscape has the potential to support up to 3-5 turbines, or exceptionally up to 6 - 9 turbines (and only in blander areas for sub type 12a.) However, this capacity is derived from a strategic assessment and each proposal still needs to demonstrate how it relates to local landscape character and capacity. The applicant concludes that the proposal, in conjunction with the operational scheme at Bothel, will exceed the landscape capacity of the area. I agree that this is the case.

4.10 The applicant has assessed the landscape effects from a range of viewpoints and has provided an overall assessment of the scheme on the local and wider landscape character. However, I consider that the assessment findings are weak with regard to effects on the landscape character within 2.4km radius of the site. The photomontages submitted as part of the application give the impression that the existing turbines are not particularly discernible from some locations, such as around Aspatria Rugby Club. Site visits confirm that the existing turbines are highly visible from this location and form a focal point against the fells backdrop. Therefore it is likely that the proposed turbines would be more visible and have a more significant effect in the 2.4km range than suggested in the Environment Statement. I consider that parts of the Landscape and visual impact assessment underplay the effects on both the landscape character and the visual amenity in the locality.

4.11 The assessment considers the effects of the proposal from different viewpoints within the landscape and on the overall landscape character. The applicant concludes that significant adverse impacts would be likely from a range of viewpoints within 7km of the site, and from further afield including parts of both the Lake District National Park and the Solway Coast AONB.

4.12 The applicant’s analysis of the effects from individual viewpoints identifies that the proposal would often appear as a dominant feature in the landscape due to the scale of the turbines and their siting towards the top of Wharrels Hill. They would also be seen in combination with the operational scheme at Bothel, either adjacent to the development or in conjunction with development.

4.13 When viewed as part of the wider landscape character and in particular as part of the open hill tops characteristic of both the ridge and valley and rolling limestone hills, I consider that the proposal would introduce an additional wind energy scheme that would contrast significantly in scale and form with the operational scheme at Bothel. The applicant doesn’t seem to have designed a scheme that would be compatible with regard to turbine size and siting with the operational scheme at Bothel or other local landscape characteristics.

4.14 I consider that the existing scheme generally appears as a compact and coherent feature in the landscape, albeit a highly visible, dominant or prominent one. The scheme has created a new focal point in the landscape. This proposal would, however, introduce significantly larger turbines that would have a more open and lower density pattern to the existing scheme. From some viewpoints the proposal would appear as a single scheme, seen in conjunction with the operational scheme, but from many it would appear as a separate, larger, scheme.

4.15 I consider that the proposal is incompatible with the landscape characteristics and the operational scheme. The proposal is sited in an area that is characterised by farmed pasture, bounded by hedges and interspersed by small blocks of trees and traditional linear settlements. The turbines would contrast substantially with the human scale of the settlements, farmsteads, trees and field boundaries. This is further compounded by the proximity of the turbines and their elevated position on the hillside above the villages of Threapland and Plumbland. The turbines would dominate the character of the villages, with blades appearing above rooftops, and I consider would be overbearing. It would dominate the skyline due to its siting towards the top of Wharrels Hill. It would dominate the operational scheme and nearby telecommunications tower due to its proximity and height of turbines. The proposal, when seen in conjunction with the operational scheme would create a clutter or tangle of turbines where the larger blades of the proposed scheme would dominate the smaller operational turbines. The simple and clearly spaced form of the operational scheme would be lost and replaced by a confusing tangle of moving blades of varying size and spacing.

4.16 The landscape assessment considers the overall effect of the proposal on adjacent landscapes, including those that contribute to the Lake District National Park and its setting. The applicant concludes that significant adverse effects would arise to the edges of the Lake District National Park around Blindcrake and Binsey where villages and viewpoints are in close proximity to the site and there are open views to the proposal. There would also be significant effects on the landscape character of the setting to the National Park. A review of the detailed assessment for different viewpoints further away from the site suggest that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the broad National Park landscape when viewed from Skiddaw and Bassenthwaite Lake. The proposal would appear as part of the existing scheme at Bothel, or wouldn’t be visible due to changes in topography.

4.17 I consider that the effects to the landscape character at the head of Bassenthwaite Lake would be more significant due to the differences in scale of the development and the effects that the proposal would have on the simple and evenly spaced form of the operational scheme. As set out above I consider a tangle of turbines would be produced causing confusion and an incompatible feature in the landscape.

4.18 In conclusion, I consider that this proposal is sited in an area of landscape that is sensitive to development of this nature, due to the relationship and poor design fit with the adjacent operational scheme, its close proximity to the villages of Threapland, Plumbland and Bothel and its effect on the setting of the Lake District National Park. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposal would cause significant adverse effects to the landscape character within 6km of the site. The closer to the site, the greater the significance of the effects. The introduction of additional vertical structures in this area would produce a dominant feature that would be out of scale with the local landscape features. It would appear dominant and overbearing in relation to Threapland, Plumbland and Bothel from several locations and from roads and footpaths connecting these villages. It would cause significant harm to the quiet and tranquil setting of the Lake District National Park. I do not consider that this harm is outweighed by the environmental, social and economic benefits of the scheme.

Visual Effects

4.19 The applicant’s visual assessment considers the effects of the proposal on properties, settlements, roads, footpaths, recreational areas and countryside in the area.

4.20 The villages of Threapland and Plumbland are within 1.2 – 1.8km of the proposal. The applicant identifies that significant effects are likely due to the scale and proximity of the turbines to the villages, but recognises that some views would be restricted from some properties due to orientation, topography and screening from vegetation. I agree that the effects would be significant. Despite trees and buildings limiting views in some parts of the villages, there will be clear views where the turbines, with heights of 125m, would appear dominant due to their siting on land that is elevated above the villages, their overall scale and their proximity to the villages. They would appear incongruous against the smaller, human scale features of the village. Effects on the village of Bothel will also be significant where views are open to the adjacent farmland due to proximity and the size of the turbines. This proposal, in conjunction with the operational scheme at Bothel, would result in wind turbines being dominant features on the south and west sides of the village.

4.21 The assessment identified significant effects to isolated dwellings and settlements in the adjacent valley and ridge to the north, including Aspatria and Prospect and other settlements to the north west and north east of the proposal. I agree with this. The site will be prominent on the side of Wharrels Hill and the turbines will be seen in addition to the existing wind turbines. Visual confusion will arise due to the size and layout differences between the schemes and the fact that it will often be seen as a separate wind energy development. Collectively this will increase the visual effects of the proposal. National panning guidance sets out the need for applicants to consider how best to mitigate significant effects. The applicant does not appear to have tried to mitigate these significant adverse effects which could possibly have been achieved through careful siting and designing a scheme with turbines of a similar height, form and density to the operational scheme at Bothel. The assessment identifies that from some locations views will be limited due to changes in topography and screening from buildings and vegetation. Although I accept this to be the case, it doesn’t reduce the significance of the effects on many settlements and properties within 6km of the site.

4.22 The applicant considers that significant adverse visual effects from the Lake District National Park would arise to the nearby villages of Blindcrake and Bewaldeth, and to the village of Whitrigg which is located outside, but close to, the National Park boundary and forms part of its setting. I agree with the applicant’s conclusions.

4.23 The applicant concludes that further from the site long expansive views of the proposal would be possible from the coastal plain, and in particular the Solway Coast AONB, due to the open and low lying topography, and the proliferation of roads, routes and pathways, and recreational areas associated with these areas. There would be open successive and sequential views from recreation and tourist routes along the coastal edge of the AONB and along Hadrian’s Wall across the lowland ridges towards the Lakeland Fells. The Environmental Statement identifies these areas as being sensitive to this type of development. This is reflected in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document. These open views across the tranquil and undeveloped farming hinterland are important to the special character of the AONB.

4.24 The applicant has identified that significant adverse effects would arise to views from some viewpoints along roads and routes, however they are likely to be limited due to changes in topography, vegetation, distance and orientation. Most significant affects will be intermittent or localised around the site. I generally agree with the applicant’s conclusions.

4.25 The visual assessment identifies that significant adverse effects would arise within around 6km of the site, and further away from parts of the Solway Coast AONB and Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site.

4.26 It concludes that the proposal would form a new feature in a landscape that has already been modified (by wind turbines and a telecommunication tower) and the adverse visual effects would be most significant within 2.4km of the site, and continue to be significant up to 12km from the site, and particularly from elevated positions in the Lake District National Park. Effects are greater from the north and north west where the scheme would appear as a separate and larger scale scheme to the operational scheme at Bothel. However, from certain points within the Lake District National Park the adverse visual effects would be lessened as the proposal would appear as an extension to the existing scheme at Bothel.

4.27 I agree with the above conclusion, and consider that the adverse effects would be unacceptable to villages and dwellings within 2.4km of the site, and from others where the scheme would be seen as a separate larger development to the operational scheme at Bothel. Significant adverse effects would also arise within parts of the Lake District National Park, and to a lesser extent the Solway Coast AONB. The scheme would be overbearing on the nearby settlements of Threapland due to its proximity, turbine height and location on higher ground. I, therefore, do not consider that this harm is outweighed by the environmental, social and economic benefits of the scheme.

4.28 Cumulative Landscape and Visual Effects

4.29 The applicant considered both the cumulative landscape and visual effects of the proposal in relation to operational and proposed wind energy schemes within 30km of the site as set out in the table below. The distances used by the applicant were often greater than is really the case. For example the applicant considers there is 2km between the proposal and the operational scheme at Wharrels Hill, when in fact the nearest turbines are only 800m apart.

Distance No. of turbines Height of turbines Operational/consented Wharrels Hill (Bothel) 800m 8 76m Hellrigg 12km 4 121m High Pow 12km 3 95m Flimby 13km 3 107m Voridian 14km 2 102m Winscales Moor 15km 7 81m Winscales I & II 16km 11 71m Oldside and Siddick 16km 16 61m Great Orton 21km 6 69m Lowca 22km 7 64m Fairfield Farm 22km 5 81m

In planning Tallentire 4km 6 100m Westnewton 5km 3 107m

Cumulative landscape effects The most significant cumulative effects arise in relation to the operational scheme at Wharrels Hill and these have largely been addressed in the sections on landscape effects above. In particular the landscape capacity in this area would be exceeded by this proposal. Significant effects are also likely to arise in relation to the proposed schemes at Westnewton and Tallentire.

4.30 The applicant concludes that in places where the proposal would appear as a separate development to the operational scheme at Bothel the adverse cumulative effects would be greater. Proposed schemes at Tallentire and Westnewton lie within 5km of the site. The applicant concludes that this proposal, in conjunction with both the operational and proposed schemes would confuse and cause and obvious change to the landscape character. The landscape capacity to accept change would also be exceeded with 12 turbines being located within 1km of each other, with a further 9 proposed within 5km of the site.

4.31 I agree with the applicant’s findings. The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document identifies that up to 9 turbines could be acceptable. The proposal would exceed this capacity. Wind turbines would become a dominant feature and cause significant change to the landscape character. The proposal would be sited on the side of Wharrel’s Hill which forms a prominent ridge in the landscape. The proposed scheme at Tallentire would also be sited in a similarly prominent position on an adjacent ridge to the south west. The Westnewton proposal would be sited on a lower ridge to the north of the proposal. Cumulatively these would provide visual clutter in the landscape in prominent locations.

4.32 I consider that cumulative effects would also be high in relation to the landscape setting of the Lake District National Park, and to a lesser extent, the Solway Coast AONB. The proposed scheme, operational scheme at Bothel and the proposed schemes at Tallentire and Westnewton would be seen as recurring industrial scale features that change the character of an otherwise rural backdrop. From some locations the village of Bothel would be dominated by wind turbines with the operational and proposed schemes forming large scale features either side of the village. This would be a significant issue in views from the north east and cause significant change to the landscape characteristics relating to dispersed linear villages being found along ridges and valleys.

Cumulative visual effects

4.33 The applicant concludes that significant visual effects would arise within a range of 6km of the site. The proposal would be seen from a range of viewpoints, roads and routes in conjunction with several operational wind energy developments and proposed schemes as highlighted in the above paragraph. The applicant considers that the proposal would be a dominant feature from settlements and isolated dwellings within 2.4km of the site, and a prominent feature for others up to 6km away. I agree with this, particularly with regard to properties and routes in and around Threapland, Plumbland, Bothel and Bewaldeth, and villages close to the proposed sites at Westnewton and Tallentire including Gilcrux, Dearham, Prospect and Aspatria.

4.34 I consider that significant cumulative effects would arise to both the landscape character and visual amenity both in short (2.4km) and mid to long range views (6- 12km) due to the number of operational and proposed schemes that would be seen in combination, either in the same view, or sequentially when travelling along a route, and the nature of the viewpoints from where the developments would be seen. I do not consider that this harm is outweighed by the environmental, social and economic benefits of the scheme.

Highways

4.35 Cumbria Highways consider the information submitted is generally acceptable. However there are some minor issues that would need to be addressed through conditions if Allerdale Borough Council is minded to approve this application. The conditions are needed to ensure the submitted details meet highway safety requirements. These should cover issues such as access arrangements, haul routes, improvements works and temporary signing for standard construction and abnormal vehicles associated with the development,

4.36 Taking into account the recorded accident history along the minor roads this development will utilise, construction period and anticipated number of vehicles using the route associated with the development, the Highway Authority feel this is no reason to recommend refusal of the application.

4.37 The applicant should also note that a Traffic Management Plan should be produced for the abnormal vehicles for approval by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Highway Authority and Cumbria Constabulary. This should be done prior to work commencing on site.

Archaeology

4.38 The Environmental Statement indentifies a number of archaeological remains surviving on the site. Most of these relate to the 18th and 19th century agricultural and domestic-scale industrial use of the site and these are avoided by the proposed development. Aerial photographic evidence also indicates that the line of a probable Roman road crosses the site and that remains survive below ground. The line of the access road may affect one section of the Roman road. I agree with the Environment Statement that the potential for currently unknown archaeological remains to be affected by the proposed development is low given the negative results of the archaeological evaluation in the locations of the proposed turbines.

4.39 The proposed development therefore has the potential to disturb remains of a probable Roman road. If Allerdale Borough Council is minded to support the application, the ground works associated with the construction of the access road in the vicinity of the Roman road, as shown in figure 9-1 of the Environmental Statement, should be subject to a programme of archaeological recording. This recording should be carried out during the course of the development (a watching brief) and should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer. This programme of work can be secured through the inclusion of a condition in any planning consent.

Other Issues

4.40 The applicant considers the proposal would provide the opportunity for socio- economic benefits. Between 14 - 18 construction workers would be employed throughout the construction period, and 1 full time equivalent maintenance engineer would be employed following construction.

4.41 The applicant considers the issue of tourism. The assessment fails to acknowledge the Lake District National Park as a major tourist attraction. However the assessment recognises that tourism and recreation effects are most likely to be linked to walking and riding in the local countryside. The applicant concludes that the proposal is likely to have a negligible effect on tourism and recreation. I consider that this underplays the significance of both the Lake District National Park and the Solway Coast AONB.

4.42 Allerdale Borough Council, as the decision making body, should consider other issues such as biodiversity, hydrology, shadow flicker, noise, radar and telecommunications, in addition to the issues considered in this report. These issues are not covered in this report and other statutory consultees should be commenting on them. They should be taken into account by Allerdale Borough Council prior to making a decision, particularly with regard to any significant adverse effects that may arise.

Energy contribution

4.43 National policy strongly encourages the use of renewable energy sources to help offset green house gas emissions and the increasing reliance on imported energy supplies. They form part of a mix of energy resources being supported by Government. The recent Climate Change Act requires a 26% cut in carbon emissions by 2020, rising to 80% by 2050 (based on 1990 levels). The Renewable Energy Strategy, 2009, seeks to deliver European set targets that will increase renewable energy generation to cover 15% of the UK’s energy needs. To achieve the 10 fold increase, substantial additional renewable electricity production will be required. The Government sees an expansion of wind energy capacity, both on and offshore, as being key to meeting these targets.

4.44 According to the Sustainable Development Commission and other studies it is likely that the carbon emissions related to the manufacturing and construction of the turbines would be offset by the carbon saved from renewable electricity production within the first 10 months of operation.

4.45 National and regional planning policies support the development of renewable energy projects. PPS22 – Renewable Energy contains strong national guidance on the need for local authorities to support and encourage renewable energy proposals that do not cause unacceptable harm to the local environment. It states that planning authorities shouldn’t make assumptions on the technical and commercial feasibility of schemes. For the reasons set out earlier in the report I consider that unacceptable significant effects would arise from this scheme, on its own and in combination with other operational, consented and proposed schemes on the landscape character and visual amenity.

4.46 The Regional Spatial Strategy contains a target for onshore wind development in Cumbria to provide, in conjunction with existing schemes, 210MW of ‘installed capacity’ by 2010. Renewable Energy Policy EM17 also encourages schemes to be supported that are acceptable to the location and scale of the landscape character and sensitivity of the area. It states that stringent requirements for minimising impact on landscape would be inappropriate except for the most exceptional circumstances, such as within national landscape designations. To assist with taking decisions on issues such as landscape character the Wind Energy SPD was jointly produced and adopted in 2007. The capacity assessment findings of the SPD have been taken into account when considering this scheme.

4.47 The importance of supporting renewable energy proposals is reflected in saved Structure Plan Policy R44 of the JSP. Schemes will be considered favourably where no significant adverse effects arise with regard to a variety of criteria, including landscape character and local amenity. However, when considering if any such effects arise, significant weight also needs to be given to the environmental, economic and energy benefits that might arise from a scheme.

4.48 There are 17 operational schemes in Cumbria, and 5 more with consent. Together these will have an installed capacity of around 120.5MW, producing enough electricity to meet the needs of around 67,000 households. The scheme would contribute positively towards regional targets through an installed capacity of up to 12MW, or 11% towards the outstanding amount needed by 2010.

5 CONCLUSION

5.1 National and regional planning policy is promoting targets for renewable energy and looking for local authorities to support proposals for renewable energy developments which do not have unacceptable impacts.

5.2 Saved Policy R44 of the Joint Structure Plan relates to renewable energy schemes outside national landscape designations and supports favourable consideration if there are no significant adverse effects on landscape character, built heritage, local amenity, highways and a range of other issues.

5.3 I consider that this proposal does not accord with principle viii of Planning Policy Statement 22 as the developer does not appear to have taken appropriate steps to mitigate these adverse effects through the design and siting of the scheme. It does not accord with Policy R44. It would cause significant adverse effects on the landscape and visual character of the area, both individually and cumulatively. It is also contrary to Policy E34 due to the detrimental effect on the setting of the Lake District National Park and Policy E37 as the proposal is not compatible with the landscape character due to its adverse effects on locally distinctive features, the character of the built environment, its scale in relation to villages and other landscape features and its visual intrusion. An objection should be raised on these grounds.

Shaun Gorman Head of Environment

Contact

Jenny Wain, Kendal, tel. 01539 713427

Background Papers

Planning Application File Reference No. 2/09/0788

Electoral Division Identification

J Buchanan, Aspatria and Wharrels