Resources Legal and Democratic Services The Lonsdale Building The Courts Carlisle Cumbria CA3 8NA Fax 01228 226372 Tel 01228 606060 Email [email protected]
11 October 2013
To: The Chair and Members of the Development Control and Regulation Committee
Agenda
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE
A meeting of the Development Control and Regulation Committee will be held as follows:
Date: Friday 18 October 2013 Time: 11.00 am Place: Council Chamber - County Offices, Kendal, LA9 4RQ
Caroline Elwood Acting Assistant Director – Legal and Democratic Services
Group Meetings:
Labour: 10.15am Committee Room 1 Conservative: 10.00am Committee Room 2 Liberal Democrat: 10.00am Committee Room 4
Enquiries and requests for supporting papers to: Janine Hounslow Direct Line: 01228 226906 Email: [email protected]
This agenda is available on request in alternative formats
Serving the People of Cumbria
1 MEMBERSHIP
Labour ( 8) Conservative ( 6) Liberal Democrat ( 3)
Mr I Stockdale (Chair) Mr LN Fisher (Vice-Chair) Mr N Cotton Mr A Clark Mr RK Bingham Mrs BC Gray Mr KR Hamilton Mrs HF Carrick Mr J McCreesh Mr G Humes Mr AJ Markley Mr FI Morgan Mr AP Richardson Mr W Whalen Mr A Toole Mr E Wilson Mr H Wormstrup
West Cumbria Independent (1)
Mr JS Holliday
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Agenda and Reports
Copies of the agenda and Part I reports are available for members of the public to inspect prior to the meeting. Copies will also be available at the meeting.
The agenda and Part I reports are also available on the County Council’s website – http://councilportal.cumbria.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CId=124&Year=0
Background Papers
Requests for the background papers to the Part I reports, excluding those papers that contain exempt information, can be made to the Legal and Democratic Services Unit at the address overleaf between the hours of 9.00 am and 4.30 pm, Monday to Friday.
2 A G E N D A
PART 1: ITEMS LIKELY TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENC E
To receive any apologies for absence.
2 CHANGES IN MEMBERSHI P
To note any changes in membership.
3 DISCLOSURES OF INTER EST
Members are invited to disclose any disclosable pecuniary interest they have in any item on the agenda which comprises
1 Details of any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.
2 Details of any payment or provision of any other financial benefit (other than from the authority) made or provided within the relevant period in respect of any expenses incurred by you in carrying out duties as a member, or towards your election expenses. (This includes any payment or financial benefit from a trade union within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
3 Details of any contract which is made between you (or a body in which you have a beneficial interest) and the authority
(a) Under which goods or services are to be provided or works are to be executed; and
(b) Which has not been fully discharged.
4 Details of any beneficial interest in land which is within the area of the authority.
5 Details of any licence (alone or jointly with others) to occupy land in the area of the authority for a month or longer.
6 Details of any tenancy where (to your knowledge)
(a) The landlord is the authority; and
(b) The tenant is a body in which you have a beneficial interest.
7 Details of any beneficial interest in securities of a body where
3
(a) That body (to your knowledge) has a place of business or land in the area of the authority; and
(b) Either –
(i) The total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body; or
(ii) If that share capital of that body is of more than one class, the total nominal value of the shares of any one class in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest exceeds one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that class. In addition, you must also disclose other non-pecuniary interests set out in the Code of Conduct where these have not already been registered.
Note
A “disclosable pecuniary interest” is an interest of a councillor or their partner (which means spouse or civil partner, a person with whom they are living as husband or wife, or a person with whom they are living as if they are civil partners).
4 EXCLUSION OF PRESS A ND PUBLIC
To consider whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of any item on the agenda.
5 MINUTES
To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting held on 4 September 2013 and the Minutes of a special meeting held on 24 September 2013 (copies enclosed). a 4 September 2013 (Pages 1 - 6) b 24 September 2013 (Pages 7 - 12)
6 WILDLIFE AND COUNTRY SIDE ACT 1981 - SECTION 53 PROPOSAL TO DELETE A SECTION OF PUBLIC FOOTPATH NO 138044 AT COTEHILL IN THE PARISH OF WETHERAL, DISTRICT OF CARLISLE
[Electoral Division: Wetheral]
To consider a report from the Corporate Director – Environment (copy enclosed).
This report informs members that an application has been received by the County Council to delete a section of public footpath no 138044 at Cotehill in the parish of Wetheral. (Pages 13 - 22)
4 7 REPORTS ON APPLICATI ONS FOR PLANNING PER MISSION
These are applications which are determined by the County Council after taking into account the views of consultees and relevant representations. Applications in this category are prescribed by legislation. Private applications principally relate to minerals and waste management activities and associated development. County applications are developments which are to be carried out by the County Council itself or jointly with any other person. (Pages 23 - 24) a Planning Application No. 1/13/9020 Extensions to Infant School to provide 2 no. Classrooms. Extensions to Junior School to provide 2 no. Classrooms, learning resources area, 3 no. group rooms, staff room, PPA Rooms, Site Manager's Office and associated stores. Amendments to extend playground areas. Amendments to provided additional parking spaces. Kingmoor Junior and Infant Schools, Hether Drive/Liddle Close, Lowry Hill, Carlisle (Pages 25 - 46) b Planning Application No. 2/12/9011 Erection and operation of 4 wind turbines to maximum height of 99 metres and associated infrastructure. New access track, widening of access gate and new control kiosk. Lillyhall Landfill Site, Joseph Noble Road, Lillyhall Industrial Estate, Workington (Pages 47 - 98) c Planning Application No. 3/13/9008 Erection of a pumping station with associated access track with hammerhead turning area and improved permanent highway access (including hedge removal). On land to the north of Ashleigh, Catterlen (Pages 99 - 110) d Planning Application No. 3/13/9009 Construction of a Wastewater Treatment Works (including removal of trees and hedgerow) on land south-east of Town End Cottage, Laithes (Pages 111 - 122) e Planning Application No. 3/13/9010 Erection of a new outfall into the River Petteril, on land south of the C3010 and Town End Cottage, Laithes (Pages 123 - 128) f Planning Application No. 4/13/9007 Temporary storage of excess materials from nearby residential development comprising of Anhydrite and slag. Former TDG Tanker Depot, High Road, Whitehaven, CA28 9QJ (Pages 129 - 136) g Planning Application No. 4/13/9008 S73 Application for the variation of Conditions of Planning Consent 4/06/9016 relating to the Decommissioning of PCM Retrieval facilities. Low Level Waste Repository Ltd, Old Shore Road, Drigg, Seascale, Cumbria, CA19 1XH (Pages 137 - 146) h Planning Application No. 6/13/9001 Retrospective Planning Application to Reconstruct Existing Farm Access Track and Deposition of Recycled Inert Waste to Embankments and Landfill. Land to North of Sowerby Lodge Farm, Bank Lane, Barrow-in-Furness, LA14 4QY (Pages 147 - 172)
5
8 APPLICATIONS/CONSULT ATIONS DETERMINED UN DER DELEGATED POWERS
[Electoral Divisions: Various]
To receive a report from the Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability (copy enclosed).
To note that these are applications/consultations that have recently been determined by the Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability in accordance with their schemes of delegation. (Pages 173 - 174)
9 APPLICATIONS/CONSULT ATIONS PROPOSED TO B E DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
[Electoral Divisions: Various]
To receive a report from the Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability (copy enclosed).
To note that these applications that have been submitted to the County Council but are not ready/appropriate for presentation to the Committee of for determination under delegated powers and/or have been recently withdrawn or determined as invalid or not requiring planning permission etc. (Pages 175 - 176)
10 APPLICATIONS TO BE C ONSIDERED AT FUTURE MEETINGS
[Electoral Divisions: Various]
To receive a report from the Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability (copy enclosed).
To note the list of outstanding planning applications. (Pages 177 - 178)
11 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BUT AWAIT ING SIGNING OF LEGAL AGREEMENTS
These are applications that have been granted by DCR committee, but for which a Decision Notice has not yet been issued as they are awaiting the sign off of legal agreements. (Pages 179 - 180)
12 REPORTS ON CONSULTAT IONS BY DISTRICT COU NCILS, NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITIES, ADJOINING PLANNING AUTHORITIES AND GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS, ETC.
In accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Schedule 1, paragraph 7, the County Council is consulted on those applications which are considered to fall within
6 the agreed Development Control Code of Practice for Cumbria. (Pages 181 - 182) a Planning Application No. 2/13/0519 Erection of 8 Wind Turbines With A Maximum Height To Blade Tip of 100m with Associated Ancillary Infrastructure, Control Building, Internal Access Tracks, Crane Pads and Temporary Site Compound/Storage Area. High Pow Wind Farm, Bolton New Houses, Wigton. (Pages 183 - 210)
13 FUTURE MEETI NG DATES
To note the list of forthcoming meetings. All meetings take place in The Council Chamber, County Offices, Kendal, starting at 11.00 am:-
Wednesday 27 November 2013 Wednesday 15 January 2014 Wednesday 26 February 2014 Wednesday 9 April 2014 Wednesday 28 May 2014
7 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5a
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE
Minutes of a Meeting of the Development Control and Regulation Committee held on Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 11.00 am at Council Chamber - County Offices, Kendal, LA9 4RQ
PRESENT :
Mr I Stockdale (Chair)
Mr RK Bingham Mr FI Morgan Mrs HF Carrick Mr AP Richardson Mr GD Cook Mr M Stephenson Mr KR Hamilton Mr I Stewart Mr K Hitchen Mr A Toole Mr JS Holliday Mr W Whalen Mr G Humes Mr M Wilson Mr W McEwan Mr H Wormstrup
Also in Attendance:-
Mr T Bowes - Solicitor Mrs J Corry - Team Leader, Development Control Ms J Hounslow - Senior Democratic Services Officer Ms F McEnaney - Planning Officer Mr E Page - Planning Officer Mrs J Petersen - Senior Planning Officer
PART 1 – ITEMS CONSIDERED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PUBLIC AND PRESS
28 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mr A Clark, Mr L Fisher, Mrs B Gray, Mr A Markley, Mr J McCreesh and Mr E Wilson.
29 CHANGES IN MEMBERSHIP
It was noted that Mr M Wilson, Mr K Hitchen, Mr I Stewart, Mr M Stephenson, Mr G Cook and Mr W McEwan replaced Mr A Clark, Mr L Fisher, Mrs B Gray, Mr A Markley, Mr J McCreesh and Mr E Wilson respectively, as members of the Committee for this meeting only.
It was also noted that Mr H Wormstrup had replaced Mr M Hawkins as a permanent member of the committee.
Page 1 30 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST
There were no disclosures of interest made.
31 EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED, that the press and public be not excluded during consideration of any items of business.
32 MINUTES
RESOLVED, that the minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2013 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
33 REPORTS ON CONSULTATIONS BY DISTRICT COUNCILS, NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITIES, ADJOINING PLANNING AUTHORITIES & GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ETC.
(1) Planning Application No. 4/13/2235 Outline planning permission for the erection of 431 (approx) dwellings, land reserved for primary school & associated ancillary open space & infrastructure and approval in full for matters in association with association with 139 dwellings to the south of the site with access, pedestrian bridge, SUDS features & associated open spaces and infrastructure. Land bound by Woodhouse to north & High Road/Wilson Pit Road to west & south, Whitehaven
Ms McEnaney, Planning Officer, Spatial Planning presented the report which was an application to Copeland Borough Council for outline planning permission for the erection of 431 dwellings, with land reserved for a primary school and associated ancillary open space and infrastructure and approval in full for matters in association with 139 dwellings to the south of the site with access from Wilson Pit/High Road, pedestrian bridge, SUDS features and associated open space and infrastructure.
A lengthy discussion ensued, with members concerns as follows:-
• Whole site unsuitable due to bleak weather conditions and hardly any trees growing on the site • the proposed housing mix is all wrong, of 139 dwellings, 86 of them would be four bedded houses • the school not being built until the 200 th dwelling has been occupied on the site would put pressure on existing near capacity schools. The school should be built before the 139 th unit is occupied • had the highways assessment taken into account the Albion Squares development • lack of consultation with local Members from the Highways Authority • residents in St. Bees will be rightly worried about potential for flooding, due to a lack of a robust drainage and surface water plan for the development
2 Page 2 In response the Planning Officer advised that the landscape drawings submitted included a park and woodland. She also had concerns around the housing mix on the site and lack of affordable housing in phases 1 and 2 but assumed the applicant needed to build the 4 bedded houses for financial viability. The county council were only consultees so could not stipulate the housing mix. Colleagues in the Education department had looked at policies and pupil yield and compared with capacity to determine the need. They decided that 200 dwellings would be reasonable and viable. The Committee did not have a role in authorising the technical Highways response, only planning.
Mr Morgan as Chair of Copeland Local Committee noted that the report stated no comments had been received from local members. He believed he could not respond as he was also a member of DCR and asked that any future reports for comment be sent to the vice-chair. Mr Bowes, Solicitor reminded members that the first training session in June, covered changes to the bias and predetermination legislation so as to encourage members to take a fuller role as representatives of their local communities. Any application should then be considered with an open mind.
Members wished to see the recommendations as written bolstered up to reflect all comments made during the debate. The Chairman asked members to agree to the application being deferred and asked that it be added to the Agenda for the special meeting on 24 September. It was,
RESOLVED, that the report be DEFERRED until the special meeting on 24 September.
34 REPORTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
(1) Planning Application No. 4/13/9006 Erection of fencing on top of original stone playground wall to an overall height of 3m. Moor Row Community Primary School, Moor Row, CA24 3JW
Mr Page, Planning Officer introduced the report which was for the erection of fencing to an existing sandstone wall, at Moor Row Community School.
RESOLVED, that planning permission be GRANTED for the reasons stated Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions Appendix 2.
(2) Planning Application No. 5/13/9002 Improvements to agricultural land through importation of inert material. Winder Moor, Willow Lane, Flookburgh.
Mrs Petersen, Senior Planning Officer introduced the report which proposed improvements to agricultural land trough importation of inert material. A member did have an anxiety about the inert waste being tipped there, as it was builders rubble which would have lime in it. The field was a peat bog and the rubble would change the composition of the soil. However, he was surprised to note there was no objection from Natural England.
3 Page 3 RESOLVED, that planning permission be GRANTED for the reasons stated Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions Appendix 2.
(3) Planning Application No. 6/13/9009 Section 73 application to extend the extraction of sand until 2016. Roose Sand Quarry, Rampside Road, Barrow-in- Furness
Mrs Petersen, Senior Planning Officer introduced the report for a Section 73 application to extend the extraction of sand until 2016.
RESOLVED, that planning permission be GRANTED for the reasons stated Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions Appendix 2.
35 APPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
RESOLVED, that the list of applications/consultations determined under delegated powers be noted.
36 APPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS PROPOSED TO BE DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Members queried the following:-
• Why was Planning Application No. 4/11/9008 delegated. The Section 73 application was to change the hours of working as the applicant wanted to finish the work earlier. • Where was Planning Application No. 2/13/9009. It was an unmade lane from Thompsons Yard to a track up to Flimby Wood. Mr Humes MOVED a site visit, this was SECONDED by Mr Whalen, following a vote 6 FOR and 3 AGAINST, a site visit was agreed (Mr Humes later withdrew his request for a site visit) • Planning Application No’s 3/13/9008/9&10 had the local residents been consulted. All properties had been notified by hand delivered letter.
RESOLVED, that the list of applications/consultations proposed to be determined under delegated powers be noted.
37 APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AT FUTURE MEETINGS
The list of applications to be considered at future meetings was discussed. Members asked when site visits to Planning Application No. 3/08/9020 Shapfell Quarry and Planning Application No. 4/11/9007 Low Level Waste Repository, Drigg. They were informed that further information was still required from both applicants, once received, site visits would be arranged.
RESOLVED, that the list of applications to be considered at future meetings be noted.
4 Page 4 38 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BUT AWAITING SIGNING OF LEGAL AGREEMENTS
RESOLVED, that the list of applications determined but still awaiting signing of legal agreements be noted.
39 FUTURE MEETING DATES
RESOLVED, that the list of future meeting dates be noted.
The meeting ended at 12.12 pm
5 Page 5 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 6 Agenda Item 5b
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE
Minutes of a Meeting of the Development Control and Regulation Committee held on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 at 10.30 am at Council Chamber - County Offices, Kendal, LA9 4RQ
PRESENT :
Mr I Stockdale (Chair)
Mr LN Fisher (Vice-Chair) Mr K Hitchen Mr RK Bingham Mr J McCreesh Mrs HF Carrick Mr W McEwan Mr A Clark Mr FI Morgan Mr N Cotton Mr AP Richardson Mr KR Hamilton Mr E Wilson
Also in Attendance:-
Mr I Fairlamb - Planning Services Manager Mr D Haughian - Strategic Programme Coordinator - Nuclear Ms J Hounslow - Senior Democratic Services Officer Mr G Kenyon - Senior Planning Officer - Major Development Ms F McEnaney - Planning Officer Mr R Pearse - County Countryside & Landscape Officer Ms M Spark - Solicitor
PART 1 – ITEMS CONSIDERED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PUBLIC AND PRESS
40 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mrs B Gray, Mr G Humes, Mr A Markley, Mr A Toole, Mr W Whalen and Mr H Wormstrup.
41 CHANGES IN MEMBERSHIP
It was noted that Mr W McEwan and Mr K Hitchen replaced Mr H Wormstrup and Mr A Markley respectively as members of the Committee for this meeting only.
42 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST
There were no disclosures of interest made.
43 EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
Page 7 RESOLVED, that the press and public be not excluded during consideration of any items of business.
44 REPORTS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE DIRECTORATE (NID) FOR NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
(1) EN010027 Application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to enable the applicant to construct and operate the Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm – a proposed wind farm in the Irish Sea comprising between 93 and 207 turbines with a total generating capacity of up to 750 megawatts, together with a number of associated developments., Offshore (Irish Sea), approx. 19km west of the Walney coastline. DONG Energy
The Development Control and Regulation (DC&R) Committee considered a report from the Corporate Director – Environment which sought members approval of a joint Cumbria County Council, Copeland Borough Council, South Lakeland District Council, Lake District National Park Authority, Lancashire County Council and Lancaster City Council Local Impact Report (LIR) relating to DONG Energy’s application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to enable the applicant to construct and operate the Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm, a proposed wind farm in the Irish Sea comprising of between 93 and 207 turbines with a total generating capacity of up to 750 megawatts, together with a number of associated developments.
Mr Kenyon, Senior Planning Officer – Major Development introduced the report. The Committee were being asked to consider and approve the draft LIR and refer it to Cabinet. It was for Cabinet to make representations about whether the Council supports the proposal or not, taking account of the LIR. As the LIR was a joint authority document, it would be going through the relevant Committees at the respective councils, if there were any changes made, these would be reported back to the DC&R Chairman.
The applicant had shown 3 indicative height options for the turbines; 142m; 176m; and 222m. DONG were still undecided as to which turbines they preferred but had assessed, due to density, the greater impact would be made by the larger number of smaller turbines. However, some of the view points at sea level would potentially have more impact from the taller turbines, than the smaller, more densely sited ones. The applicant was unsure as to which port they would use as their base during the construction phase and had a choice of Barrow, Belfast, Heysham or Liverpool. They were also considering these locations, plus Douglas, Garston and Workington as a potential base for ongoing operation and maintenance of the project. They already had a maintenance base in Barrow for Walney Wind Farm 1 and 2 so it was hoped they would opt for Barrow. There would be a minor effect on the fishing grounds but there had been some research undertaken that suggested fish actually used the base of the turbines as spawning grounds. The applicant believed there would be some disturbance of radioactive particles during the construction and removal phase but they would resettle within one tidal movement
2 Page 8 and the risk of them reaching the shore was negligible. A bond would be secured through the DCO to cover the decommissioning of the site.
Mr Haughian, Strategic Programme Coordinator – Nuclear added that the county council had been working closely with the other authorities to secure a community benefit contribution from the developer. They had held initial negotiations and were looking for a figure of £1,500 per MW for the life of the scheme, equivalent to £28m over the life of the project. DONG had so far written back stating they would provide a community benefit fund but not how much it would be. Members were reminded that any community benefit scheme was not a material planning consideration.
Members made the following comments:-
• The photo montages show the turbines as tiny pinpricks but the visual impact once construction is completed is always much larger • The visual impact assessment should also have included the view from South Lakeland and not just Barrow and Copeland • Impact on local fishermen due to the turbines being constructed in their fishing grounds • Bad visibility in the area could cause problems for ships • Pleased there will be a bond for decommissioning, especially as the wind farm has a minimum 25 year lifespan • Applicant a bit vague on where the jobs would be created • Already a maintenance base in Barrow so would make sense for applicant to use existing location for the operation of the new wind farm • Foundations to be removed only to a level of 1m below sea bed despite foundations being 70m deep • Have the environmental regulatory bodies challenged the applicant’s assessment that the risk of radioactive particles reaching the shore would be negligible • Is there a risk of radioactive waste arising from decommissioning • There may be highway impacts in Cumbria caused by construction activity
Mr Hamilton MOVED the recommendation, this was SECONDED by Mr Fisher.
RESOLVED, that the joint Cumbria County Council, Copeland Borough Council, South Lake District Council, Lake District National Park Authority, Lancashire County Council and Lancaster City Council Local Impact Report, as set out in Annex 1 to the report be approved and that it be referred to Cabinet, for Cabinet to make representation to the Planning Inspectorate about whether the Council supports the proposal or not, taking account of the Local Impact Report agreed by DC&R and the comments and minutes from the meeting.
45 REPORTS ON CONSULTATIONS BY DISTRICT COUNCILS, NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITIES, ADJOINING PLANNING AUTHORITIES & GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ETC.
3 Page 9 (1) Planning Application No. 4/2013/2235 Outline planning permission for the erection of 431 (approx.) dwellings, land reserved for primary school and associated ancillary open space and infrastructure and approval in full for matters in association with 139 dwellings to the south of the site with access from Wilson Pit/High Road, pedestrian bridge, SUDS features and associated open space and infrastructure. Land bound by Woodhouse to the north and High Road/Wilson Pit Road to the west and south, Whitehaven.
Ms McEnaney, Planning Officer, Spatial Planning presented an update report which addressed the concerns raised by members at the previous meeting in relation to education and highways. The information also contained a section on the level of affordable housing provision and explained the changes made to the recommendations since the meeting on 4 September.
The Chairman reminded members that they had a full debate on the application at the previous meeting and asked them to agree the recommendations. A member referred to the Connecting Cumbria project which sought to ensure that all new housing developments were made ‘broadband ready’. He believed the wording should be changed to make it more explicit. There was disappointment expressed at the response from both the education and highways departments, despite direct contact with senior officers by some members.
RESOLVED, that
1) endorsement be given to the holding Highways Authority objection raised on the proposed development due to lack of adequate information provided by the applicant
2) on the basis that the issues relating to the highways objection are resolved, there is no objection raised to the strategic planning principle of the development, provided that the Local Planning Authority:
i. attaches a condition relating to the Historic Environment if it grants planning permission for the proposed development ii. secures a Section 106 agreement to deliver the necessary education provision. The s106 should state that when the 200 th dwelling is occupied, the developer will either need to commit to providing a new 1 Form Entry school (either building it themselves or providing the county council with a suitable site and the full construction costs of £3.5million) the specification would need to be agreed with the county council. iii. Is satisfied that the development reflects and protects the character of the site and its surroundings; that the density and siting of any houses is appropriate to the
4 Page 10 location; and measures to mitigate any adverse impacts are put in place iv. Ensures that full consideration of ecological issue are carried out prior to determination v. Ensures that measures are taken by the applicant to enable this housing development to be ‘broadband ready’ vi. Secures, through negotiation between the applicant and Cumbria County Council, an appropriate dwelling mix and housing design/layout prior to the reserved matters being submitted for the outline application to recognised the needs of vulnerable people vii. Ensures the applicant resolves the concerns raised by the County Council relating to surface water and waste water.
46 APPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
RESOLVED, that the list of applications/consultations determined under delegated powers be noted.
47 APPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS PROPOSED TO BE DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Mr Fairlamb, Planning Services Manager advised that there had been an objection to Planning Application No. 3/13/9008 Erection of a pumping station, on land to the north of Ashleigh, Catterlen so it would now be considered at committee. Mr Richardson MOVED a site visit to the application and also to Planning Application No. 3/13/9009&10 Erection of a new outfall into the River Petteril, Laithes and that they be considered by Committee.
RESOLVED, that
1) the list of applications/consultations proposed to be determined under delegated powers be noted;
2) a site visit to Planning Application No. 3/13/9008 Erection of a pumping station, on land to the north of Ashleigh, Catterlen and Planning Application No. 3/13/9009&10 Erection of a new outfall into the River Petteril, on land south of the C3010 and Town End Cottage, Laithes be arranged for the 13 October 2013 and that they be considered at Committee.
48 APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AT FUTURE MEETINGS
The list of applications to be considered at future meetings was discussed.
5 Page 11 There had been a suggestion for a further site visit at Planning Application No. 1/13/9020 Extensions to Kingmoor Infant and Junior Schools, Carlisle but the Chairman believed it was not required. The Vice-Chair was in agreement and advised that the school had done a lot of work to mitigate the concerns raised in the initial application. He did however, propose a site visit to Planning Application No. 2/13/0519 Erection of 8 wind turbines at High Pow Wind Farm, Bolton New Houses, Wigton.
Mr Richardson, requested a site visit to Planning Application No. 3/08/9020 application to deepen part of Shapfell Quarry. The Planning Services Manager agreed that a site visit would be beneficial but it would not be added to the October site visit.
RESOLVED, that a site visit be held to Planning Application No. 2/13/0519 Erection of 8 wind turbines at High Pow Wind Farm, Bolton New Houses, Wigton on 13 October 2013
49 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BUT AWAITING SIGNING OF LEGAL AGREEMENTS
RESOLVED, that the list of applications determined but still awaiting signing of legal agreements be noted.
50 FUTURE MEETING DATES
RESOLVED, that the list of future meeting dates be noted.
The meeting ended at 11.50 am
6 Page 12 Agenda Item 6
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & REGULATION COMMITTEE
Meeting date: 18 October 2013
From: Corporate Director – Environment
WILDLIFE & COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 – SECTION 53 PROPOSAL TO DELETE A SECTION OF PUBLIC FOOTPATH NO 138044 AT COTEHILL IN THE PARISH OF WETHERAL , DISTRICT OF CARLISLE
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 An application has been received by the County Council to delete a section of public footpath no 138044 at Cotehill in the parish of Wetheral. A plan (Appendix A) shows the section of path to be deleted.
1.2 The purpose of this report is to present Members with the evidence regarding the proposed deletion of this section of right of way and for a decision to be made whether to proceed with the next stage of the process by making a legal order. If that order is then confirmed Cumbria’s Definitive Map and Statement will be altered to remove the section of public footpath.
2.0 POLICY POSITION , BUDGETARY AND EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS , AND LINKS TO COUNCIL PLAN
2.1 The relevant corporate theme is the creation and protection of a high quality environment for all.
2.2 This matter is a decision making process of a quasi-judicial nature. There should be no policy or political consideration given and any potential financial implication should be ignored. It is solely a matter of weighing the strength of evidence and if it is sufficient to meet the burden of proof then the legal steps must be taken.
3.0 RECOMMENDATION
3.1 It is recommended that the application to delete a section of public footpath no 138044 in the parish of Wetheral (shown A-B-C on the map annexed at Appendix A) be rejected. Page 13
4.0 BACKGROUND
4.1 This section of Public footpath no 138044 was added to the Council’s Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way following receipt of an application in 2004 for a Modification Order to be made under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Objections were received to the making of the Order and a Public Hearing was held on 15 April 2008.
4.2 At that Hearing it was decided that the Order made on 15 June 2007 should be confirmed with modifications. Those modifications were written amendments to the Order and did not alter the line of the created path. A copy of the 2007 Order plan which was confirmed on 5 September 2008 is attached as Appendix B.
4.3 An application has now been received to delete the section of path added by the 2007 Order on the basis that the requirements of Schedule 15(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has not been complied with.
4.4 The applicants were advised that this did not satisfy the criteria for deleting a path from the Definitive Map and Statement and that they would have to provide clear and cogent evidence that there is no public right of way at this location.
4.5 Additional evidence was therefore produced and the application was placed on the Council’s list of outstanding applications.
4.6 The applicants have since appealed to the Planning Inspectorate at Bristol stating that their application had not been dealt with within 12 months of receipt and the Council has been instructed to make a decision on this application before 4 November 2013.
5.0 EVIDENCE
5.1 The applicants refers to Planning Inspectorate guidance and a legal case in 1914 (Thornhill v Weeks) regarding physical characteristic of a claimed way and having regard to the locality through which the alleged path goes. The fact that a path goes close to the house is strong enough to raise a presumption against an intention to dedicate. Officers do not consider that path 138044 imposes on the applicant’s property “Locarno” in a manner adequate to raise a presumption against an intension to dedicate. The path follows a trafficked private metalled road outside of the curtilage of the residential property and separated by a walled garden.
5.2 The applicants also contest that the tipping of coal in 1984/85 was an obstruction/interruption to the public footpath (at that time unclaimed) being evidence of landowners’ lack of intention to dedicate as the yard was completely filled and it was impossible to walk over it. There have been numerous cases since 1914 regarding landowners’ intention not to dedicate, the most recent being Godmanchester (2007) which found that such intention had to be brought to the attention of the public for them to understand what the owner’s intention had been. Officers believe this piece of evidence - although it does interrupt the original 20 year claim between 1982 and 2002 - on its own is not adequate to justify making an Order to delete the section of path. In addition it is their opinion that the
Page 14
temporary obstruction of the route by a heap of coal does not clearly inform the public of the landowner’s intention not to dedicate.
5.3 In 2006 one of the applicants was issued with a Court Order as a result of a dispute with neighbours to the property Locarno. The Court Order told him to remove a notice on the access gate to Locarno, which was restricting access to the neighbour’s property and to replace with one agreeable to both parties. The draft wording, issued by the Court, for the new sign contained the phrase “No public right of way”. The applicants are now claiming that to remove this sign would render them criminally in contempt of court yet, since the confirmation of legal order as appendix B, displaying it now renders them criminally liable for obstructing a public footpath. However, when the Court Order was made in 2006 the Modification Order adding the claimed route to the Definitive Map had not been confirmed. Thus the Court could not have been aware that the route was a public right of way at that time. Accordingly the landowner can now be requested to remove the wording "no public right of way" from the notice.
6.0 CONSULTATIONS
6.1 The statutory requirement for consultation has been undertaken. Further, the usual prescribed organisations and the known landowners/occupiers have been consulted in writing.
6.2 One of the applicants owns land affected by this Order.
6.3 Carlisle City Council supported the original application to add the path to the Definitive Map and is of the opinion that the new application to remove it should be rejected.
6.4 Wetheral Parish Council is not aware of anything that has changed since the public hearing in 2008 which would materially affect the status of the footpath, and has nothing to add to the body of evidence and accumulated knowledge already available to the County Council.
6.5 A representative of the Cumbria Local Access Forum has visited the site and expressed the view that it appears that local people wish that the path confirmed on 5 September 2008 be retained.
6.4 The local member, Cllr N H Marriner has been consulted but has made no comments.
6.5 The applicant has submitted a summary statement as appendix C.
7.0 LEGAL POSITION
7.1 The County Council has a statutory duty to keep the Definitive Map and Statement of Rights of Way under continuous review (s.53 Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981).
7.2 The application, as submitted, is made pursuant to section 53(3)(c)(iii) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on the alleged grounds that there has been a discovery by the Order Making Authority “ ..of evidence which (when considered with all other relevant evidence available to them) shows that there is no public Page 15
right of way over land shown in the map and statement as a highway of any description, or any other particulars contained in the map and statement require modification
7.3 Section 56 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 states that a Definitive Map and Statement shall be conclusive evidence as to the particulars contained therein.
7.4 In considering the application to amend the Definitive Map, Members must consider all the evidence available to them and must be satisfied that the evidence shows - on the balance of probabilities - that the map and statement should be modified.
7.5 The evidence needed to remove what is shown as a public right from the definitive map and statement will need to fulfil certain stringent requirements. These are that:-
- the evidence must be new – an order to remove a right of way cannot be founded simply on the re-examination of evidence known at the time the definitive map was surveyed and made
- the evidence must be of sufficient substance to displace the presumption that the definitive map is correct,
- the evidence must be cogent (Clear, logical, and convincing)
While all three conditions must be met they will be assessed in the order listed. Before deciding to make an order, the County Council must take into consideration all other relevant evidence to them concerning the status of the right of way and they must be satisfied that the evidence shows on the balance of probabilities that the map or statement should be modified.
8.0 OPTIONS
8.1 The Committee may accept or reject the recommendation. Should they agree the recommendation the applicant has the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate at Bristol.
8.2 Should they reject the recommendation, this may result in objections being received and possibly another public hearing would then follow.
9.0 CONCLUSION
9.1 Officers are of the opinion that insufficient evidence has been produced to satisfy Members that on the balance of probabilities the map and statement should be modified.
9.2 Members are therefore advised to reject the application.
Page 16
Andy Brown Senior Manager, Strategic Asset Management
October 2013
APPENDICES
A Plan showing right of way to be deleted B Copy of plan from 2007 Order C1 – C3 Applicants summary statement
IMPLICATIONS
Staffing: Nil Financial: Nil Electoral Division: Wetheral – N H Marriner
PREVIOUS RELEVANT COUNCIL OR EXECUTIVE DECISIONS [including Local Committees]
Decision of Development Control & Regulation Committee – 30 March 2007 – resolution to add public footpath in the parish of Wetheral under Section 53 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981
CONSIDERATION BY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Not considered by Overview and Scrutiny.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
No background papers
Contact: Sandra Pattinson, Countryside Mapping Officer - Tel: (01228) 226328 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 17 APPENDIX A
Page 18
APPENDIX B
Page 19
APPENDIX C1
Page 20
APPENDIX C2 Page 21
APPENDIX C3 Page 22 Agenda Item 7
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & REGULATION COMMITTEE
Meeting Date: 18 October 2013 From: Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability
REPORTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION NOTE: These are applications which are determined by the County Council after taking into account the views of consultees and relevant representations. Applications in this category are prescribed by legislation. Private applications principally relate to minerals and waste management activities and associated development. County applications are developments which are to be carried out by the County Council itself or jointly with any other person. Case Officer Contact Details are provided in the Footnote at the end/rear of the Agenda
Authority Area/ Proposal Description / Date Ref. No. / Site Location / Received / Applicant (Case Officer) - Registered
Carlisle
1/13/9020 Extensions to Infant School to provide 2 no. Classrooms. Extensions 04.09.13 Cumbria to Junior School to provide 2 no. Classrooms, learning resources County Council area, 3 no. group rooms, staff room, PPA Rooms, Site Manager's Office and associated stores. Amendments to extend playground areas. Amendments to provided additional parking spaces. Kingmoor Junior and Infant Schools, Hether Drive/Liddle Close, Lowry Hill, Carlisle. (ELL)
Allerdale
2/12/9011 Erection and operation of 4 wind turbines to maximum height of EIA FCC 99metres and associated infrastructure. New access track, widening Application Environment of access gate and new control kiosk. Lillyhall Landfill Site, Joseph Noble Road, Lillyhall Industrial Estate, Workington Updated Landscape (JP) and Visual Impact Assessment received 5 July 2013
Eden
3/13/9008 Erection of a pumping station with associated access track with 19.08.13 United Utilities hammerhead turning area and improved permanent highway access (including hedge removal). On land to the north of Ashleigh, Catterlen. Site Visited (EP) 02.10.13
3/13/9009 Construction of a Wastewater Treatment Works (including removal o f 19.08.13 United Utilities trees and hedgerow). On land south-east of Town End Cottage, Laithes Site Visited (EP) 02.10.13
3/13/9010 Erection of a new outfall into the River Petteril, on land south of the 19.08.13 United Utilities C3010 and Town End Cottage, Laithes. (EP) Site Visited 02.10.13
Page 23 Copeland
4/13/9007 Temporary storage of excess materials from nearby residential 25.06.13 Story Homes development comprising of Anhydrite and slag. Former TDG Tanker Depot, High Road, Whitehaven, CA28 9QJ (JP)
4/13/9008 S73 Application for the variation of Conditions of Planning Consent 16.08.13 Low Level 4/06/9016 relating to the Decommissioning of PCM Retrieval facilities. Waste Low Level Waste Repository Ltd, Old Shore Road, Drigg, Seascale, Repository Ltd Cumbria, CA19 1XH (ELL)
South Lakeland
Nil
Barrow
6/13/9001 Retrospective Planning Application to Reconstruct Existing Farm 15.01.13 JJC Skip Hire Access Track and Deposition of Recycled Inert Waste to Ltd Embankments and Landfill. Land to North of Sowerby Lodge Farm, Site visited on Bank Lane, Barrow-in-Furness, LA14 4QY 22.08.13 (RB)
Page 24 Agenda Item 7a
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 18 OCTOBER 2013 A Report by the Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability ______
Application No: 1/13/9020 District:Carlisle City Council
Applicant: Cumbria County Council Parish: The Parkhouse Building Baron Way Carlisle Date of Receipt: 3 September 2013 ______
PROPOSAL Extensions to Infant School to provide 2 no. Classrooms. Extensions to Junior School to provide 2 no. Classrooms, learning resources area, 3 no. group rooms, staff room, PPA Rooms, Site Manager's Office and associated stores. Amendments to extend playground areas. Amendments to provided additional parking spaces. Kingmoor Junior School, Liddle Close, Lowry Hill, Carlisle, CA3 0DU ______
Page 25 1.0 RECOMMENDATION
1.1 That planning permission is GRANTED for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 It is proposed to construct 2 new classrooms at Kingmoor Infant School and additional staff and visitor car parking spaces. At Kingmoor Junior School it is proposed to construct 2 new classrooms; learning resources area; 3 no. group rooms, a staff room, PPA rooms, site manager's office and associated stores, and additional staff and visitor car parking spaces. 2.2 On the Kingmoor Junior School site a temporary access road would lead off Hether Drive to a compound area located on the existing playground area to the west of the school buildings. The construction site compound area would provide construction parking, materials storage, and also house the temporary site office. An existing portacabin which is currently used as a classroom would be used as the temporary site office for the duration of the construction work, and would be removed from the site on completion of the work. 2.3 A separate construction compound would be provided for the development proposals at Kingmoor Infant School, and would be located to the east of the school buildings on existing playing fields. A temporary access road would be created from the east side of the Community Development Centre at the Junior School on Liddle Close, following the eastern boundary of the Junior School grounds leading to temporary construction compound on the Infants site. Temporary gates would be installed at the edge of the existing junior school car park to ensure only authorised construction vehicles would be permitted down this access road to the infants school construction compound. 2.4 Construction vehicles would not be permitted along this route, or enter or exit via the existing junior school car park onto Liddle Close, between 8.30am – 9.13am; and 3.15pm – 4.00pm, to ensure the safety of children, staff and visitors at school “muster” times. The same “muster time” access restrictions for construction vehicles would apply to those accessing the Hether Drive construction compound. Secure boundaries would be provided around both of the construction compounds and access routes, and would remain in place until the completion of the development, and then removed and the land reinstated. 2.5 Since the previous application for this development was submitted and subsequently withdrawn, substantial improvements have been made to the Combined School Travel Plan including provision for: - Walking Buses; Park and Stride Schemes; A School Crossing Patrol on Kingstown Road; and Several new ‘Mini-Pod’ cycle and scooter storage units installed at both school sites to attract pupils and staff to cycle or scoot to school. 2.6 During the 2013 Summer Term, Cumbria County Councils Active Travel Team undertook a intensive period of engagement of pupils, parents and staff at both
Page 26 schools to encourage people to travel to school by alternative means than the car. 2.7 The proposed car parking facilities have also been reassessed since the submission and subsequent withdrawal of the previous application, and additional on-site car parking facilities are proposed. At present there are 21 spaces including 2 disabled spaces at the Infant and Nursery School, and 18 spaces including 2 disabled spaces at the Junior School site. It is proposed to create an additional 19 no. car parking spaces across the two schools, 8 additional car parking spaces at the Infant and Nursery School; and 11 additional car parking spaces at the Junior School. This would provide a total of 29 standard parking bays, and 2 disabled parking bays at each school. This number exceeds the Parking Standards set for staff and visitors for schools in Cumbria in relation to the total number of pupils at the schools. The parking facilities would be shared between both schools, with the additional parking bays also allowing sufficient provision for school staff and visitors to the Community Business Centre which is located on the Kingmoor Junior School site. 2.8 This revised planning application also realigns an existing internal pedestrian footpath at the Junior School to provide a larger grassed play area to the west of the school adjacent to Hether Drive. 3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Carlisle City Council Planning – No objections, subject to the proposals fully complying with Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) regulations, and there being no objections from the Highway Authority.
3.2 Sport England – Have no comments on the application.
3.3 Cumbria Police Crime Prevention Advisor – Comments that police calls for service between 1 January 2012 and 16 th September 2013 for Kingmoor Junior School total 16 calls for service, 7 relating to youngsters climbing on roofs, and for Kingmoor Infant School they total 16 calls for service, 6 relating to youngsters climbing on roof. It is recommended that the temporary installation of intruder detection equipment on the existing exposed flat roofs (linked to the school CCTV system), with the intention of prompting a consequence to any roof intrusion. The proposed new extensions would have pitched roofs which greatly reduces the opportunities for intrusion, but care must be taken to ensure that there are no building fixtures or adjacent features that could be exploited as climbing aids. For example, the proposed fence enclosing the infant play area runs between the two lowest points of the roofline (east elevation). It may be appropriate to enlarge the play area, so that the fence run terminates closer to the highest points; or the roof could incorporate deeper overhangs.
3.4 In addition, appropriate civil litigation signage must be placed to warn intruders to the risk of injury. They recommend the incorporation of security rated external doors and windows (i.e. compliant with LPS 1175) and fitted with laminated glazing. The Intruder Alarm System should be extended to include the new buildings and a review of the CCTV scheme undertaken to consider the re- positioning of cameras to optimise views of the building elevations and potential climbing points.
Page 27 3.5 United Utilities – have been consulted but no reply had been received when this report was prepared.
3.6 The Highway Authority comment that they acknowledge that there are existing traffic problems (for at least 7 years that they know of) around school muster times, in the estate cul-de-sacs surrounding the schools, due to parents/guardians using vehicles to take children to/from school. These tend to be worst during the afternoon muster time, when vehicles are parked for significant times and vehicles need to turn, before leaving. Highways state that this revised application includes significant changes to the site’s parking layouts to give additional parking that slightly exceeds the Cumbria Parking Standards. In addition, the County Active Travel Team have targeted the schools during the final term of the 2012-3 academic year, 2 ‘Walking Buses’ and a ‘Park & Stride’ initiative were trialled in June/July to allow assessment of Modal Shift away from Private Car Travel and project this forwards to future years as pupil numbers are anticipated to increase.
3.7 They comment that the Design & Access and Transport Statements have been revised and the existing School Travel Plans extensively revised and brought together as a Combined Travel Plan for the Campus {i.e. covering both schools and the Community Business/Development Centre (CBC)}. This is perhaps the most important new document as it details the Active Travel measures and future projections, including an undertaking that the document will be revised annually.
3.8 Having examined the revised documents/submission it is of the Highways Authorities view that all that is practicable has been done to ameliorate the impacts of the expansion. It has to be recognised that any school causes some disruption in terms of activity, traffic and noise, impacts which would not exist were if a school were not there. In this case these schools were constructed as an integral part of the estate, whilst certainly the catchment gravity has moved further away as housing has developed over the 40 years since they were built (and as residents surrounding the school have aged thus reducing the density of children immediately surrounding the schools) the fact remains it is an existing Use/situation, thus the Applicant is only required to demonstrate a ‘nil detriment’ impact, rather than resolve an existing situation, particularly as this is the legitimate use of public highways.
3.9 From a Highways & Transport perspective it is clearly better to accommodate the children within a local school than force them to attend schools further away, as this increases travel/traffic problems elsewhere on the network. The highway authority remain in the view the proposed school expansion has no major highways/traffic implications for the local network and they are now content that the internal parking changes, provide sufficient ‘off road parking’ for operational needs. The Highway Authority recommends that conditions relating to a Construction Management Plan and Programme; and highway complimentary works to be carried out on Hether Drive and Esk Road.
3.10 Local Member Mr A Toole has been notified of the application.
Neighbour Consultations carried out –
Page 28 3.11 As part of the consultation process for this planning application, Site Notices were placed on residential roads which were most likely to be affected by the proposals. Residents who could be affected by the development proposals were also consulted by letter about this application, which resulted in approximately 250 household notification letters. The deadline for the response to the consultation by Cumbria County Councils planning department for local residents was Friday 27 September 2013. The Lowry Hill Residents Association was also consulted directly on this planning application by Cumbria County Councils planning department.
3.12 The applicant also carried out Public Meetings, one immediately before, and one immediately after the submission of the planning application.
Support of the Planning Application
3.13 A total of 74 letters of support for the proposals have been received following the public meetings held prior to, and following, the submission of the planning application. Of these letters of support, 20 are from residents of Lowry Hill who also have children at the schools; 37 letters are from parents who have children at one or both of the schools; 15 are from employees of the schools; and 2 are from local residents.
3.14 In addition, 6 separate letters of support have also been received, one from the Chair of Governors of Kingmoor Nursery and Infant School; and one from the Chair of Governors of Kingmoor Junior School; three of the letters are from parents of children at the school; and one letter from a local resident.
3.15 The Chair of Governors of Kingmoor Nursery and Infant School has provided a written letter of support of the proposals and have outlined the current issues at the school. He commented that the County Council took the decision to increase the Pupil Admission Number (PAN) of the schools from 60 pupils to 75 pupils in September 2012. In addition there has been, and continues to be, a number of children admitted by the Schools Independent Appeal Panel. The consequence of these actions has meant that in September 2013 there were 220 children in total in Reception, Year 1 and Year 2, instead of the 180 pupils the school was designed for. Due to the increase in the number of pupils at the September 2012 and September 2013 Reception intake, and a lack of sufficient classrooms to accommodate the additional 30 pupils at the school, modifications to the internal layout in the Nursery Building were undertaken during the 2013 summer holidays to provide an additional classroom. As a consequence of these alterations the Nursery facilities have been significantly reduced, and as a result the Governors have had to make the difficult decision to restrict nursery provision in the 2013/2014 academic year, opening only for morning sessions, and not having January and April intakes of three year olds. The Chair of Governors has acknowledged concerns raised by the local community regarding the congestion and traffic around both schools, however in the case of the Infant School this situation is unlikely to change as a result of this planning application as the school currently has 222 pupils, and the Infant School PAN is 229 pupils (anticipated to be reached by September 2014). The proposed additional facilities and classrooms would enable the school to provide the necessary level of teaching accommodation suitable for the number of children already attending the Infant School. It would also ensure the Nursery building could be returned to
Page 29 sole use by the pre-school. They comment that the school actively encourage cycling, scooting, and walking to school, and the school remind parents to be considerate of the schools residential neighbours when parking.
3.16 The Chair of Governors of Kingmoor Junior School has also provided a written letter of support. They comment that the proposed developments at both schools are required to accommodate the number of pupils attending the schools since the County Councils decision to increase the Pupil Admission Number (PAN) to 75 pupils per year. In the absence of the additional facilities being provided at the Junior School there would be insufficient classroom teaching space to cater for the number of pupils expected; inadequate kitchen facilities that could not cater for the demands for school meals; restricted hall space impeded by inadequate PE storage; insufficient group rooms; and inadequate storage space. The Chair of Governors acknowledges that local residents raise concerns about the impact of the proposed expansion would have on traffic management and congestion issues around the school. The school is already, and will continue to be actively involved in schemes to encourage pupils and parents to access the school using modes of transport other than cars. The school are trying to persuade parents and pupils to change their travel habits and is encouraging parents and pupils to use “walking buses” or to take advantage of one of the new “park and stride” car parks that have been established. The revised proposals also provide more on site car parking for staff, school visitors, and visitors to the Community Business Centre, removing the need for these staff and users to park in surrounding residential streets. School pupils are also being encouraged to walk, scoot or cycle with new cycle pods being installed, reward schemes being introduced. The proposals would provide core facilities that are essential for the staff at the school to continue to provide the best possible educational experience to pupils both now, and in the future.
3.17 The four other letters of support outline the following issues: -
Under provision of primary school provision in Carlisle North – It is acknowledged that there is not a sufficient level of primary provision in the Carlisle North area. This situation is a direct result of the previous decision to close Belah School, and relocate the pupils to the other schools in the area. The increase in PAN numbers at both schools highlights this under provision, and as a result the need for schools to expand to provide the necessary classroom accommodation and facilities for the pupils.
Pupils are already at the school with inadequate facilities – The higher level intake of 75 pupils per year has been in pace for the last 2 academic years, and the schools have and continue to struggle to provide adequate teaching facilities for these children that already attend the school. The extensions are vital to the children’s education and to accommodate all the pupils and their needs, which would suffer if long term changes are not made.
Inconsiderate parking – One resident comments that they have themselves witnessed the inconsiderate parking and driving that occurs at schools’ opening and closing times, and that they have great sympathy for the residents of Liddle Close and Hether Drive, however this is an issue that should have been properly addressed when the County Council decided to increase pupil numbers in 2012.
Page 30 If refusing the application would result in a reduction in the planned increase in pupil numbers, then the highways access and parking issues would be a material planning consideration, but this is not the case, the number of pupils and traffic would not reduce from current levels if planning permission were refused.
Objections to the planning application
3.18 Objections have been received from six local residents of Liddle Close, Hether Drive, Lowry Hill Road and Brunstock Close. One of the objections is from a resident of Lowry Hill, who also has a child at the Junior School.
3.19 One of the residents also objected to the previous planning application for the extensions at the school and their previous objection included a petition of local residents. The resident requested that this petition be taken into account for this application, however they have been advised that all residents who signed the petition would need to agree to this taking place as the application has changed and the new application needs be assessed entirely separately.
3.20 Several photos of the current parking problems experienced by local residents have also been submitted as part of local residents’ objections.
Traffic, Parking and abuse of parking restrictions by parents - Residents are concerned over the level of traffic, and the unsafe parking which has increased over the years. This continues to be a problem, not having improved since the implementation of the initiatives to reduce this problem, and it is exactly the same in September as it was before school finished in July. Residents comment that the new proposals were suppose to alleviate the horrendous driving traffic problems caused by inconsiderate drivers, however this has not happened. They comment that at times it is impossible to leave their houses as the road is completely blocked, and when they do try to leave their properties by car, the drivers do not move out of the way for the residents. Residents are also concerned that children could be injured as they run out onto the road from between parked cars. The pavements are blocked by cars, which pushes pedestrians to have to walk on the roads, causing health and safety issues for both residents and school children. One resident also comments that the impression from the public meetings held at the schools that once planning permission was granted that the Lowry Hill Residents would be left to deal with the matter themselves.
Timing of the Traffic Survey – Residents highlight that the traffic survey carried out does not give details of the number of days this was carried out over. There is also concern that the submitted School Travel Plan compares travel data from November 2012, winter, to travel data from July 2013, summer, which provides an inappropriate comparison of the value and success of the measures implemented through the Travel Plan. They comment that a further survey should have been carried out at the start of the new intake when it would have provided a true reflection of car movements, in particular being able to consider with the additional number of pupils in the September 2013 intake.
Additional parking bollards/metal post – Residents comment that in the past additional parking bollards or metal posts have been promised to the residents
Page 31 to be provided on the bad corner of Hether Drive to stop illegal parking, but these have never materialised.
Parking / Traffic Wardens – Parking/Traffic wardens from Carlisle City Council rarely visit and when they do they stand in full view. Traffic Wardens being in the vicinity improves the parking problems, however as soon as they leave the drivers revert to normal, and the traffic wardens only appear to ask people to move their vehicles, and do not issue tickets. Parents also now try to avoid the yellow lines by parking with all four wheels on the pavement, which causes a dangerous traffic hazard for the pupils who are pushed onto the roads. The resident dreads the wet weather as the problem gets worse as more parents then bring their children to school by car.
No parking provision for disabled parents or children – There is currently no “drop off” provision for disabled parking for disabled parents or children. Residents claim that although there are a couple of disabled parking spaces available in the schools car parks, parents are not allowed to park there.
No additional parent parking to be provided – Although the residents acknowledge the improvements in car parking provision in the application for staff at the school, there is no provision of car parking for parents, and the areas that were previously considered to be turned into parent parking in the previous application have been removed from this application.
Emergency vehicle access reduced – Residents raise concerns that through parents cars being parked on the road, access for delivery vans to the shops and emergency access is seriously hindered. The resident acknowledges that the emergency services state that they are happy with the situation in a letter accompanying the planning application, although they comment that their site inspection with an emergency vehicle was carried out at 7.15pm, not at a school muster time, when access is severely restricted.
Construction traffic routes – The proposals identify that construction traffic for the Junior School proposals is proposed to be accessed from Hether Drive. One Hether Drive resident is concerned with how this would be managed, and that residents could park their own vehicles on the narrow road which would result in lorries being unable to use the proposed access route.
Alternative travel to school methods – Residents claim that new methods such as the “Walking Bus” routes introduced recently have had little success, and that there is no visual evidence from around the schools of these initiatives having an effect on traffic volume. Residents comment that one of the larger “walking buses” from the Belah area has already failed, and that the evidence provided in the School Travel Plan was from a 3 week period of time immediately after the initiatives were set up and therefore provide unreliable conclusions. One resident comments that the school walking bus appears to only involve infant pupils, and therefore does not reduce the traffic on Liddle Close which leads to the Junior School. Residents comment that the Park and Stride plans are unrealistic and will not work, especially on a wet or snowy winter day. They also suggest that the proposal that infants would cycle or ride scooters to school seems to be a non starter, with only one scooter parked in the new scooter racks on Friday 6 th September at 2:30pm. Residents also suggest that the mix of young
Page 32 cyclists and walkers, along with the number of cars, is receipe for disaster as some children go straight onto the road without care, and have on several occasions narrowly missed oncoming vehicles.
Change of house ownership and the future and pupil numbers – One resident states that to their knowledge at present there are no children in Hether Drive attending the Infant School, and there are 3 who attend the Junior School who will all leave the school next year. The position is the same in most roads, as most of the current residents have lived on these roads for many years and their families have left home. As these current residents move and downsize, more and more young families will move in causing an additional influx of new pupils within catchment, and there will not be sufficient capacity for them to get places at the schools. Therefore the proposals put forward in this planning application are a short term fix. Residents suggest that the County Council should be forward thinking and build a new school north of the river, as the proposed school at Crindledyke will not be built for at least 10 years, if it ever materialises, with 50 new houses planned per year and a school promised when it reaches 199 houses. The resident also questions where will children moving into these new housing developments go to school in the meantime. There is also concern that independent pupil appeals occur each year which results in additional pupils over and above the PAN being accepted into the schools, which increases the current problems with the schools being oversubscribed.
Loss of green space – One resident is concerned that the development proposals would result in the loss of green space within the schools. The infant school ground lost the garden and wildlife areas when the nursery was built, and the proposed extensions would further reduce school grounds. The proposed extensions at the junior school would result in the loss of the shrubbery area, and would affect the privacy of neighbouring properties.
4.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT
4.1 The application site is located within the Lowry Hill estate to the north of Carlisle. Both the Infant and Junior Schools occupy this common site however they operate independent of each other and are each accessed separately, with the Infants being accessed from Hether Drive, and Juniors from Liddle Close. The Infant School occupies the south half of the site with the Junior School on the north half, with a shared area of hard surfaced playground between them. The schools site is bounded on all four sides by medium density housing. There are also a small number of retail units on Hether Drive close to the Infant vehicle entrance. There is an area of playing fields located to the south east of the school site.
4.2 The main school buildings were built at the same time as the housing estate in the early 1970’s, with some more recent smaller additions. The existing buildings at the Infant School are single storey with flat roofs, which incorporate large glazed panels with facing brickwork panels between. To the south of the main Infant School building is the relatively new Nursery building, which is of modern design and architecture and has a curved metal profiled sheeted roof.
4.3 The Junior School buildings are single storey to the western end with flat and low pitched roofs, large glazed panels and facing buff coloured brickwork
Page 33 panels. The eastern end is two storey with a pitched roof of interlocking tiles. A more recent single storey extension at the eastern end has a more steeply pitched roof of profiled metal sheeting. The main area to be developed at Kingmoor Junior School to the north west of the existing school buildings, and would utilise existing cavities in the external face of the building to provide small storage rooms, and would provide a much more streamlined finish to this part of the school buildings.
4.4 The main issues relating to this development proposal relate to pupil numbers at both schools; the need for the extensions; existing and future traffic, access and parking issues in the vicinity; and construction traffic.
Pupil Numbers
4.5 The Pupil Admission Number (PAN) for Kingmoor Junior and Infant Schools were increased following approval by Cumbria County Councils Cabinet in 2011 for the schools PAN to raise from 60 to 75 pupils per annum, the 75 pupil intake being implemented in September 2012. This has resulted in both schools now having a 2.5 form entry, and overall increasing the net pupil capacity of the Infant School from 180 to 225 pupils, and the net pupil capacity of the Junior School from 240 to 300 pupils. At present at the 2013 Autumn term, there are 222 pupils at the Nursery and Infant School, and 245 pupils at the Junior School.
4.6 It is noted that the roll has been exceeded previously from its previous 60 PAN, and the new reception intake in September 2013 of 75 pupils has also been exceeded by 4 pupils taking it to a 79 pupil intake. The county council originally allocated 75 places for September 2013 entry, in line with the published admission arrangements. Unsuccessful applicants have a right of appeal, and appeals are decided by a panel which is independent of the county council. The panel’s decisions are binding on the county council and the school and, in this case, 4 additional children were admitted.
4.7 The tables below set out the pupil numbers at present, and those anticipated in the future years with the agreed PAN of 75 pupils per year. This demonstrates and clarifies how this PAN affects the overall numbers of pupils in each of the schools over the next 5 academic years.
Numbers on Roll at present – September 2013
Reception Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 TOTAL
Kingmoor 79 222 Nursery and 75 68* Pupils Infant School
Kingmoor 245 60 62** 63** 60 Junior School Pupils
* The September 2013 Year 2 of 68 pupils is the last that entered the school when the previous PAN of 60 was in operation.
Page 34 ** The Year 4 and Year 5 at September 2013 numbers exceed 60 as a result of successful appeals or, in the case of some children, the desire of the Junior School to accommodate all of those transferring from the Infant School.
Anticipated Numbers on Roll – September 2014
Reception Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 TOTAL
Kingmoor 79 229 Nursery and 75 75 Pupils Infant School
Kingmoor 253 68 60 62 63 Junior School Pupils
Anticipated Numbers on Roll – September 2015
Reception Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 TOTAL
Kingmoor 79 229 Nursery and 75 75 Pupils Infant School
Kingmoor 265 75 68 60 62 Junior School Pupils
Anticipated Numbers on Roll – September 2016
Reception Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 TOTAL
Kingmoor 229 Nursery and 75 75 75 Pupils Infant School
Kingmoor 265 79 75 68 60 Junior School Pupils
Anticipated Numbers on Roll – September 2017
Reception Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 TOTAL
Kingmoor 75 75 75 229 Nursery and Pupils Infant School
Kingmoor 75 79 75 68 297 Junior School Pupils
Page 35 Anticipated Numbers on Roll – September 2018
Reception Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 TOTAL
Kingmoor 75 75 75 229 Nursery and Pupils Infant School
Kingmoor 75 75 79 75 304 Junior School Pupils
Change of house ownership and the future and pupil numbers
4.8 Residents have raised concerns over the proposals being a short term fix to deal with the current pupil numbers allowed through the PAN, and through appeals, and not taking into account the long term needs of the local area and long term pupil numbers.
4.9 In addition, for the September 2013 entry there were 81 first preference applications, 71 of which were from within the schools catchment area. It would be reasonable to expect a substantial number of those parents to have appealed, even if the roll had remained at 60 pupils. Current data shows that this level of first preference in-catchment applications is likely to be similar in future years.
4.10 Residents highlighted that in general there is an aging population of residents in the Lowry Hill area in properties around both the schools. As these residents move and downsize, more young families will move into these family sized houses, resulting in an influx of new pupils within catchment.
4.11 Another potential increase in roll at Kingmoor Schools could be from the development of the new housing scheme at Crindledyke, which has outline planning permission for between 850 dwellings, 171 will be ‘affordable’, and lies approximately 1.3 miles (as the crow flies) to the north west of Kingmoor Junior School. The first Phase for this development was granted approval in 2012 and includes 184 dwellings, 42 of which are affordable. Although there is a new school proposed as part of this scheme, the Section 106 agreement for this states that no more than 199 residential units can be occupied before the new school has been completed and is available for occupation. As an alternative it allows for the developer to pay the County Council a contribution before no more than 60 homes are occupied, and for the Council to use this to deliver a new school.
4.12 Although it is easy to understand why some residents believe that the pupil numbers will continue to rise in this residential area, and that the current roll may not be able to deal with the numbers of pupils within the catchment in the future, this cannot be assumed. This planning application solely deals with providing the necessary facilities for the current pupil roll at the Infant School at present, which is also consistent with the projected roll with a continuing PAN of 75 pupils. The 75 pupil per year intakes will also progress through the Junior
Page 36 School over the next 5 years. Both the Infant and Junior School need to be able to provide the appropriate number of classrooms and the facilities to accommodate the continuing PAN of 75 pupils per year .
The need for the proposed extensions to the schools
4.13 As outlined above, the 75 pupil intake was increased through a decision made by Cumbria County Councils Cabinet in 2011, and took effect from September 2012, and there is an existing commitment that the September 2014 intake will also be a 75 pupil intake. Although internal alterations have been made to the Nursery building in order to accommodate the additional class following the increase in the PAN in 2012, the alterations have led to the Nursery having to reduce their pre-school provision until additional classroom accommodation can be provided for the Infant School pupils. In addition, as these pupils move through the Infant School and into the Junior School, the same issues will occur through the lack of classroom space to accommodate the number of pupils who already attend the Infant School.
Policy
4.14 The National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] stipulates that great weight should be given to the need to create, expand or alter schools. Policy LC11, Educational Needs, of Carlisle City Councils adopted Local Plan (2001 – 2016) states that proposals for the development of education facilities should be provided within the existing educational sites. On existing sites, proposals for new buildings should be in close proximity to existing buildings to minimise the visual impact of additional development. The extensions to the school proposed meet this criteria and the proposal supports this policy.
4.15 Policy CP5, Design, of the adopted Carlisle Local Plan describes that new development proposals should be assessed following several design principles, including responding to the local context and the form of surrounding buildings in relation to height, scale and massing, and by making use of appropriate materials and detailing; ensuring all components of the proposal, such as buildings, car parking, access routes, open space and landscaping, are well related to one another to ensure a well integrated, successful and attractive development. The proposals meet the principles set out in this policy.
4.16 Policy CP16, Public Transport, Pedestrians and Cyclists, of the adopted Carlisle Local Plan states that new developments should offer a realistic choice of access by public transport, walking and cycling. Priority should be given to the provision for safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle access including secure cycle parking provision facilities, where appropriate, in all new developments accessible to the public. The site provides extensive pedestrian and cycle access to both schools through a network of traffic free paths that lead from all of the cul-de-sacs around both schools.
Overall the main issues relating to this development proposal are traffic relating to the collection and drop off children; construction traffic and access; and existing school related parking and traffic problems in the area.
Page 37 Traffic and Parking Issues
4.17 It is well documented that the area around both schools are congested at school drop off and pick up “muster” times. Residents have highlighted that staff and visitors to both schools park on the roads outside the schools, which causes additional problems at muster times when parents try to park as close as possible to the school entrances. Residents have also criticised the removal of the proposed parking off Hether Drive which had been outlined in the previous scheme for these school extensions, which had identified an area of land suitable to be used for parking for parents. Unfortunately this area of land was not within the ownership of the County Council, and the owner of the land was not willing to discuss such a scheme, and therefore this option could not be included in this revised application. As a result of this, additional staff and visitor parking on each of the school sites has been incorporated into this revised planning application. A total of 19 no. additional car parking spaces are proposed across both schools, providing a total of 58 no. standard parking spaces and 4 no. disabled spaces for use by staff and visitors to the schools. This level of provision is above the Cumbria County Councils recommended parking provision for a school, and is a significant improvement to this development proposal. The additional parking on both school sites will ensure all staff and visitors to the schools and to the Community Business Centre do not need to park on the surrounding roads, thereby reducing their current impact.
4.18 Residents have raised concerns that the gates to the Nursery and Infant School car park are closed during the school day and therefore this discourages visitors and staff from using the facilities. The applicant advises that the gates to the Nursery and Infant School car park are closed, but not locked, during the school day. This is because parents are not usually encouraged to drive or park within school grounds during the schools opening hours as this brings them into close contact with pupils and may cause conflict. A sign on the gates could be installed to advise that the Nursery and Infant School car park can be used by staff and visitors during the school day and that the gates being closed does not discourage its use by appropriate users. This could be secured through an appropriately worded condition.
4.19 It is not possible on or around either of the school sites to provide sufficient parking to accommodate all parents, and even in doing so this would not reduce the number of vehicles coming to and from the school along these residential roads, in fact such an option would most likely be counter productive in trying to encourage a model shift to walking, cycling and scooting to school.
4.20 Residents have commented that the current parking issues cause conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, and that this would increase if these proposals were to go ahead. To date there are no recorded accidents on the roads in question, furthermore, the applicant considers that the current levels of congestion and associated, relatively low, traffic speeds, contribute to a generally safe environment for pedestrians. The highways authority recommend that the complimentary highway works as described in the Transport Statement, which include bollards on a bend on Hether Drive and a dropped crossing point on Esk Road, should be brought into use prior to the occupation of the
Page 38 extensions. This should help address some of the current issues experienced by residents, and in particular improve road safety on the blind bend on Hether Drive where oncoming vehicles currently travel along a reduced carriageway width on a blind corner.
Disabled parking for parents and children
4.21 The applicant has advised that the disabled parking bays provided at both school car parks are available to parents/carers who require use of these, and they are free to use these as and when required.
Timing of the Traffic Survey
4.22 The original baseline data for the School Travel Plan was undertaken in November 2012, and the most recent update to this was undertaken in July 2013. Residents have raised concerns that this was flawed and did not show a true reflection of car movements, suggesting in particular it had not taken account of the most recent increase in class numbers in September 2013. This application was submitted on 2 September 2013, prior to the schools returning from the summer holiday break, therefore a third collection of data and its analysis could not be carried out in the Autumn term prior to this application being submitted. The applicant has commented that both days that the data collection counts were undertaken were very similar with wet weather on both occasions.
Emergency Vehicle Access
4.23 Although residents raise concerns about potential for emergency vehicle access being restricted at peak times, and that an increase in school pupil numbers could heighten this issue, Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service advise within a letter accompanying the application that the proposals within this planning application should not have any adverse effect on fire appliances responding to an incident at or within the area around the school.
Alternative Travel to school methods
4.24 With sufficient staff and visitor parking proposed, the main concern relating to traffic and parking is that of parents at school drop off and pick up “muster times”. There are excellent pedestrian accesses to both schools via the extensive network of footpaths which connect many of the surrounding cul-de- sacs to one another and to both schools. Over the last 5 months since the withdrawal of the previous application both schools have worked closely with Cumbria County Council ’s Active Travel Team to develop the proposals and measures in the combined School Travel Plan to encourage more sustainable transport methods such as walking, cycling and scooting to school. Walking buses have already been set up and are in operation, and new bike and scooter racks have been installed at both schools, however all of these schemes are in their infancy and will require a long term cultural change of parents to ensure these measures are successful.
4.25 The walking buses, Park and Stride Schemes, School Crossing Patrol on Kingstown Road, and new cycle and scooter storage, are a significant
Page 39 improvement to this scheme, and form part of the updated School Travel Plan. Travel surveys were carried out in November 2012 and July 2013 to assess how pupils travel to school. The results show that around 52% of the pupils used sustainable means of travel in 2012 (these being by bus, car share, cycling or walking), and this rose to 62% in 2013, which shows a clear indication of model shift.
Loss of green space
4.26 Residents raised concerns over the loss of green space that would occur if the proposals for the extensions to the schools were granted. Sports England were consulted on the application and raised no concerns regarding this. In addition, a sufficient level of green space and hard and soft play areas would remain to more than meet the recommended minimum criteria per pupil attending the school(s). This application also seeks the realignment of a footpath to the west of the Junior School which currently cuts through a grassed area, which if realigned along the northern boundary of the school site, would provide a more usable area for pupils to play.
Construction Office
4.27 An existing portacabin based on the Kingmoor Junior School site has recently been granted an extended temporary planning consent (planning reference: 1/13/9013) until 30 August 2020. If permission were granted for this new planning application for the extension of both schools, it is intended that this portacabin would be retained for the duration of the construction works on the Junior School site for use as construction site office. A suitably worded condition could ensure the removal of this portacabin and reinstatement of the land to playground once the development was completed.
Construction Access
4.28 The access routes for construction vehicles will be split, with those relating to the development at the Junior School using Hether Close; and those relating to the Infant School being from Liddle Close. Suitable timing of construction traffic to not coincide with “muster time” traffic could be conditioned if planning permission were granted for this scheme. The submission of a Construction Management Plan and programme could be secured through condition.
Human Rights Act 1998
4.29 The proposal will have a limited impact on the visual amenity of the area. Any impact is minimal and proportionate to the wider social and economic interests of the community.
Page 40 Conclusion
4.30 The development proposals at Kingmoor Infant and Kingmoor Junior Schools would provide the necessary facilities for the current pupil roll at Kingmoor Infant School. The proposals would also ensure that the Junior School would be prepared and able to accommodate the 68 no. pupils from September 2014, and the 75 no. pupil PAN from September 2015. The design of the extensions are modern and well suited to the existing buildings, in particular suit the more recent extensions at the schools.
4.31 The proposed changes to the scheme over the last few months show a significant improvement in provision of parking on both school sites, and would result in more than meeting the Cumbria Parking Standards for schools, which would in turn improve the traffic and parking issues experienced by residents. The measures proposed in the updated combined Schools Travel Plan, the involvement of the Active Travel Team, and the commitment of both schools to implement the Travel Plan, should ensure that a modal shift can be achieved and maintained, which will also reduce traffic congestion and parking issues at the schools.
4.32 In light of the improvements made to the scheme originally submitted, the improved on-site parking provision, the new alternative travel method initiatives implemented, and the proposals supporting policies LC11, CP5 and CP16 of Carlisle City Councils Local Plan (2001-2016), I recommend that permission be granted subject to conditions.
Paul Feehily Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability
Contact Mrs Emma Lunn, Kendal, Tel: 01539 713 426, Email: [email protected]
Background Papers Planning Application File Reference No. 1/13/9020
Electoral Division Identification Belah ED
\\ccc-prdc-fp03\kendal$\Filing\planning\applications\carlisle\2013\1139020_Kingmoor_Infant_&_Jnr_Extensions_Revised\report 131018 DCR DRAFT - merged objs.doc
Page 41 Appendix 1 Ref No. 1/13/9020 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 18 OCTOBER 2013
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010
Summary of Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission
1 This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, in the context of national and regional planning policy guidance and advice and the relevant development plan policies.
2 The key development plan policies taken into account by the County Council before granting permission were as follows:
Carlisle City Council Local Plan (2001 – 2016)
POLICY LC11 - Educational Needs Proposals for the development of education facilities should be provided within the existing educational sites as indicated on the Proposals Map. On existing sites, proposals for new buildings should be in close proximity to existing buildings to minimise the visual impact of additional development. Where educational facilities are proposed outside existing sites the location should be close to the intended catchment in order to minimise travel in conjunction with centres listed in policy DP1. Other policies of this Plan will apply dependent upon the proposal and land to be utilised.
POLICY CP5 - Design All new development proposals will be assessed against the following design principles. Proposals should: 1 Respond to the local context and the form of surrounding buildings in relation to height, scale and massing, and by making use of appropriate materials and detailing; 2 Take into consideration any important landscape or topographical features and respect local landscape character; 3 Reinforce local architectural features, where appropriate, promoting and respecting local distinctiveness; 4 Ensure all components of the proposal, such as buildings, car parking, access routes, open space and landscaping, are well related to one another to ensure a well integrated, successful and attractive development; 5 Ensure there is no adverse effect on the residential amenity of existing areas, or adjacent land uses, or result in unacceptable standards for future users and occupiers of the development; 6 Ensure the retention and enhancement of existing trees, shrubs, hedges and other wildlife habitats where possible. Where environmental features are lost as a result of the proposal, appropriate mitigation measures should be put in place and on-site replacement of those features will be
Page 42 sought; 7 Include landscaping schemes (both hard and soft) to assist the integration of new development into existing areas and ensure that development on the edge of settlements is fully integrated into its surroundings; 8 Ensure that the necessary services and infrastructure can be incorporated without causing unacceptable harm to retained features; 9 Ensure that the layout and design incorporates adequate space for waste and recycling bin storage and collection.
POLICY CP16 - Public Transport, Pedestrians and Cyclists New developments should offer a realistic choice of access by public transport, walking and cycling. Priority should be given to the provision for safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle access including secure cycle parking provision facilities, where appropriate, in all new developments accessible to the public.
In summary, the reasons for granting permission are that the County Council is of the opinion that the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan, there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made otherwise and with the planning conditions included in the notice of planning consent, any harm would reasonably be mitigated. Furthermore, any potential harm to interests of acknowledged importance is likely to be negligible and would be outweighed by the benefits of the development.
Page 43 Appendix 2 Ref No. 1/13/9020 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 18 October 2013
Schedule of Conditions TIME LIMITS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The existing temporary classroom portacabin to be used as a contractors office for the duration of the construction shall be removed from the site by 30 August 2020.
Reason: The temporary classroom is only required to overcome the temporary shortage of accommodation at the school.
APPROVED DOCUMENTS 3. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved documents, hereinafter referred to as the approved scheme. The approved scheme shall comprise the following:
a. The submitted Application Form, dated 2 September 2013; b. Supporting letter dated 2 September 2013; c. Transport Statement, dated November 2012; d. Kingmoor Nursery & Infant School and Kingmoor Junior School, Combined School Travel Plan 2012-13, dated July 2013; e. The Design and Access Statement, dated August 2013; f. Ecological Appraisal, dated November 2012; g. Tree Survey Report; h. Plan - Site Location, plan reference: 12063-01, dated 08/13; i. Plan - Kingmoor Infant & Junior Schools – As Proposed Block Plan, plan reference: 12063-02A, dated 12/12; j. Plan – Kingmoor Junior School – Ground Floor Plan, plan reference: 33048/E0153/AG, dated 06/08/01; k. Plan – Kingmoor Junior School – First Floor Plan, plan reference: 33048/E0153/A1, dated 06/08/01; l. Plan – Kingmoor Junior School – As Proposed Site, plan reference: 12063-J- 02A, dated 26/10/12; m.Plan – Kingmoor Junior School – As Proposed Plan and Elevations, plan reference: 12063-J-01D, dated 26/10/12; n. Plan – Kingmoor Infant School – Ground Floor Plan, plan reference: E0152 (AG), dated 17/07/01; o. Plan – Kingmoor Infant School – As Proposed Plan and Elevations, plan reference: 12063-I-01D, dated 26/10/12; p. Plan – Contractors Site Access and Set up Area, plan reference: 12063-05, dated 03/13; q. Plan – Car parking as existing, plan reference: 12063-SK1, dated 05/13; r. Plan – Car parking as proposed, plan reference: 12063-04A, dated 06/13; s. The details or schemes approved in relation to conditions attached to this
Page 44 permission. t. This Decision Notice Reason: To avoid confusion as to what comprises the approved scheme and ensure the development is carried out to an approved appropriate standard.
4. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Any variations to the approved scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to being carried out.
Reason: To ensure the development is carried out to an approved appropriate standard.
HIGHWAYS
5. Before building works commence, a Construction Management Plan/Programme shall have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. This shall include measures so construction traffic and operations are contained within the site and traffic movements phased to avoid school muster times.
Reason: Were the development to proceed without such measures and restrictions, it would lead to situations that would inconvenience road users/local residents/school pupils and adversely impact on road safety. To support Local Transport Plan Policies LD7 & LD8.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development, a sign shall be erected at the entrance to the existing Infants School car park that clearly informs users that the car park is for staff and visitors use and that only they are allowed access this car park even when the gate is closed.
Reason: To provide appropriate levels of 'off street parking for the Kingmoor schools, in the interests of public and residential amenity. In support of Local Transport Plan Policies LD7 & LD8.
7. The Highway complimentary works (bollards on bend in Hether Drive and dropped crossing point on Esk Road – para:8.5 of Transport Statement refers) shall be brought into use shall be brought into use prior to the occupation of the extensions hereby approved.
Reason: In the interests of road safety/minimisation of potential hazards and support accessibility by sustainable transport modes. To support Local Transport Plan Policies C2; LD5, 6, 7, & 8.
8. The measures identified in the Travel Plan shall be implemented by the applicant within 12 months of the development (or any part thereof) commencing use. An annual review of the effectiveness of the Travel Plan, including any necessary amendments or additional measures, shall be subsequently prepared by the applicant/occupier and submitted to the LPA for approval.
Reason: To aid in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives in accordance with Local Transport Plan Policies WS1 and LD4.
Page 45 HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION WORKING AND ACCESS
9. No construction operations shall take place on the site on Saturdays, Sundays, or Bank Holidays, or outside the hours of:
- 07:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays;
With no contract vehicular access along Hether Drive or Liddle Close between 08:30 – 09:15 and 15:15 – 16:00; and
- no working on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason: To minimise adverse impacts due to noise on the local residents.
SCHEME OF MAINTENANCE FOR THE TEMPORARY PORTACABIN
10. Within 2 months of the date of this consent, a scheme for the Annual Maintenance of the external condition of the outside of the temporary portacabin building shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. This Annual Maintenance Scheme should cover the programme of works for the next seven years. Once approved this scheme for Annual Maintenance of the temporary building shall be implemented in its entirety.
Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the temporary building is maintained to a good standard and not be visually detrimental to the surrounding area.
Page 46 Agenda Item 7b
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 18 October 2013 A Report by the Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability ______
Application No: 2/12/9011 District: Allerdale
Applicant: Mr Matthew Hayes Parish: Winscales Parish FCC Environment Council 414 The Quadrant Birchwood Park Received: 7 September 2012 Warrington
PROPOSAL Erection and operation of 4 wind turbines to maximum height of 99 metres and associated infrastructure. New access track, widening of access gate and new control kiosk. Lillyhall Landfill Site, Joseph Noble Road, Lillyhall Industrial Estate, Workington, Cumbria ______
Page 47 1.0 RECOMMENDATION
1.1 That planning permission is Granted for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The proposal is for the siting of four wind turbines and associated infrastructure including new access track, widening of access gate and control kiosk. The proposed turbines would be located on land within an existing landfill site which has permission for the deposit of inert waste. The proposed candidate turbines would be of a typical modern design comprising a three bladed rotor hub mounted on a nacelle (containing generator), tower and foundation. The key technical parameters of the scheme are :
Number of turbines 4
Turbine rated capacity (MW) 2.3 p.a.
Development site rated capacity (MW) 9.2 p.a.
Number of blades 3
Tower style Tapered cylindrical
Maximum hub height (metres) 64
Maximum rotor diameter (metres) 70
Maximum height to blade tip (metres) 99
Revolutions per minute (RPM) 6 to 21
2.2 The application site is approximately 5 ha and is gently undulating being between 90 m and 120 m AOD. 2.3 The design of each turbine has not yet been decided as this would depend on availability at the time the scheme would be implemented. However the towers would be of tapered tubular steel construction. The blades would be made of a low reflectivity white, grey or off-white colour. 2.4 The proposed turbines would be sat on foundations which would be designed to reflect the ground conditions on which they would be constructed. A typical turbine foundation would usually be square, hexagonal or circular in shape and comprise a reinforced concrete slab measuring approximately 12-18 m across and approximately 3 m in depth. The concrete base would be reinforced with a grid of steel bars with concrete poured over. 2.5 Access to the site would be along Workington to Branthwaite road which is accessed directly from the A595(T). The access to the site is 620 m from the junction with the A595(T) and does not pass any residential properties. The existing access would need to be improved and widened to accommodate the largest vehicles. A new track would be constructed to enable access to each of
Page 48 the proposed turbines. The track would be a typical surface width of 4 m with localised widening if needed on curves. The construction of the tracks would be crushed stone to a nominal height of 400 mm and of a permeable surface. 2.6 It is anticipated that 1764 2-way road trips would be required during the construction of the turbines. This figure includes delivery of stone, concrete, steel reinforcement, blocks/miscellaneous materials, cables, general waste, plant deliveries, abnormal loads and alterations to the access junction. 2.7 The proposed construction compound would be located between turbines 1 and 2 immediately adjacent to the access track. The compound would be 77 m x 57 m. The compound would provide space for temporary accommodation for site offices and welfare facilities, temporary storage of components awaiting installation and other construction material, containers for the storage of tools and equipment, site toilets with provision of sealed waste storage and removal and parking for construction vehicles. The compound area would consist of a hardcore base constructed of 200 mm of crushed rock and would be removed on completion of construction. 2.8 It is estimated that construction of the turbines would take approximately 5-7 months. Following construction and commissioning it is proposed to operate and generate electricity for 25 years after which the turbines would be decommissioned. 2.9 It is estimated that construction would take approximately 5-7 months. The construction programme would consist of :
improvements to the access onto the public highway
construction of the site access tracks to the wind turbine positions
construction of foundations
excavation of cable trenches and cable laying
erection of wind turbines
construction of control building housing switch gear
connection of electricity and signal cables
commissioning site equipment
reinstatement and landscaping, reseeding verges and areas around turbine bases
2.10 FCC carried out stakeholder and public consultations during 2010. FCC wrote to 99 stakeholders including Allerdale Borough Council, parish and town council’s, issue groups and community hubs i.e. public houses, doctor’s surgeries etc. MPs and MEPs. They also carried out a public exhibition at Distington Club for Young People in 2011, the 99 stakeholders were invited. The exhibition attracted 11 visitors.
2.11 Concern has been raised by Allerdale Borough Council with regards to Cumbria County Council being the competent Authority to deal with this proposal. A legal
Page 49 opinion has been sought and because the site forms part of an operational landfill site and no application has been received to reduce the size of the operational area the proposal affects the restoration and aftercare of an active landfill site. For this reason Cumbria County Council are the determining Planning Authority.
3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Allerdale Borough Council – The scheme was considered at Development Control Committee on 28 May 2013. A joint site visit took place with Allerdale Borough Council and County Council Members on 11 April 2013. Allerdale’s Members were minded to refuse the application on the following grounds :
1. Allerdale Borough Council consider the proposed development would be visually prominent and generate a landscape dominated by wind turbines and would in conjunction with existing, approved but as yet unimplemented and pending applications for wind turbine development have a significant adverse cumulative impact on the landscape character and visual amenity of the site and its surroundings.
2. Allerdale Borough Council consider insufficient visualisation evidence has been submitted with the application to demonstrate the cumulative impact on the development in association with the pending wind farm application at Potato Pot, Branthwaite (2/2012/0594)
Allerdale Borough Council also question whether sufficient and adequate evidence has been submitted with the ES to adequately address the planning consideration of the ecological impact on Hen Harriers and any shadow flicker to the residential properties generated by the proposed turbines (within 10 rotor diameter distance of the site of the turbines).
3.2 Copeland Borough Council – Were consulted on the application and no response has been received to date.
3.3 Allerdale Borough Council Environmental Health Officer states :- No objection in principle to the proposal however in order to protect the amenity of the surrounding area it is recommended that conditions are imposed if planning permission is granted these include day and night time noise levels. Noise nuisance at residential properties and construction and demolition method statement to include traffic management plans, monitoring and mitigation of noise and vibration, adverse impacts to residential properties, procedures for dealing with complaints, dust and dirt emissions, hours of working, construction/demolition programme and lighting.
3.4 Allerdale Borough Council Conservation Officer states :- The site is on the horizon when looking west from Wythemoor it is felt that the four (closely packed) 100m turbines will be very visible. Land to the East of Wythemoor is presently a relatively timeless landscape setting and would be compromised by the prominence of the turbines on the horizon.
The proximity of the turbines to each other is a surprise - as this would upset the laminar air flow and so reduce the efficiency of the turbines. In my opinion this
Page 50 close grouping will have a more intense effect on the landscape, as it will provide a more vertical and 'urban' effect than the more normal lower density sitings, which have a more horizontal impact to better compliment a rural landscape.
This effect itself will further detract from the rural agricultural setting of Wythemoor Sough.
3.5 Highway Authority states :- No objection considering the previous use of the site and the associated traffic but would recommend that conditions are included in the granting of any planning permission requiring a construction method statement and construction traffic management plan being submitted.
3.6 Highway Agency No objection.
3.7 Environment Agency states :- No objection in principle. The applicant shall ensure that the installation and operation of the turbines does not impact on the landfill area and landfill operation including associated engineering and infrastructure. An assessment should be undertaken to determine as to whether the excavated material constitutes hazardous waste. Should the material be shown to be hazardous waste then it should not be used for the purposes of landscaping/re-profiling work and shall be disposed of to a suitably licensed facility.
3.8 Natural England states :- We do not consider that this application poses any likely significant risk to those features of the natural environment for which we would other wise provide a more detailed consultation response and so do not wish to make specific comment on the details of this consultation.
3.9 Cumbria Constabulary states :- No objections however guidance on security and crime prevention should be considered on how and where material and equipment are to be stored.
3.10 Health and Safety Inspectorate No comment.
3.11 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) No comments.
3.12 Bat Conservation Trust states :- Bats and their roosts are protected by law throughout the UK, whether occupied or not. It is illegal to damage, destroy or disturb any bats or roosts without having taken the necessary precautions.
3.13 National Air Traffic Safeguarding (NATS) states :- The scheme does not conflict with our safeguarding criteria, therefore NATS has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
3.14 Ofcom states :- The proposed development is located within the co-ordination zone of the site or path managed by JRC. As a consequence JRC objects to the proposal.
3.15 Joint Radio Company (JRC) states :- The JRC have recently met with Electricity North West (ENW) and we have had a number of conversations concerning the mitigation options as Identified within the mitigation report for the Lillyhall site. Electricity North West are now willing to proceed with a planning condition with
Page 51 their only proviso being that all mitigation costs including site surveys will be borne by the developer and that the mitigation solution will be installed and commissioned ahead of any site development work.
3.16 Defence Infrastructure Organisation No objection
3.17 Coal Authority states :- The environmental statement correctly identifies that coal mining activity is recorded to have taken place at shallow depth beneath the application site. It therefore recommends that further site investigation works be undertaken to confirm coal mining conditions and to enable the design of any necessary mitigation measures prior to commencement of the development.
3.18 Ramblers Association states :- The developers should be reminded of the need not to obstruct the adjacent right of way at any time in the development.
3.19 Winscales Parish Council No comments
3.20 The local Member - Ms M Rae has been notified.
3.21 Four letters of objection have been received to date. Their concerns are impact on the local landscape, impact on the amenities of local residents, illness through noise and shadow flicker, cumulative impact in the area, size and scale of the proposed turbines and affects on birdlife.
4.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Introduction
4.1 The application site forms part of Lillyhall Landfill Site which is an operational landfill site. The proposed location identified for the siting of the turbines is operational land identified in the 1993 planning application (2/93/9033) as an area for inert landfill. The site has formal consent for the acceptance of landfill material until June 2014. There is currently an application to extend the life of the landfill site (2/13/9007).
4.2 As with all turbine applications the merits of this EIA scheme relate to balancing the social, economic and environmental benefits against any environmental harm that may arise from the individual merits.
4.3 Supporting evidence refers to existing European, National, Strategic and Local Planning Policies including the NPPF, with a presumption in favour of sustainable Development, and the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure.
4.4 Reference is also made to the Local Authorities Core Strategy and development Management documents.
4.5 The Environmental Statement indicates the emission savings of the scheme to be 10,396 (tonnes per annum) of CO², 242 (tonnes per annum) SO² and 72.5 (tonnes per annum) NOx. This would make a significant contribution to securing reliable energy supplies in reducing dependence on fossil fuels.
4.6 There is currently a planning appeal logged with the Planning Inspectorate for
Page 52 the erection of 3 turbines at Potato Pot which is 900 m east of this proposed site. The proposal was subject of a Planning Inquiry which was heard in April 2013. The outcome of this decision is pending. Reference to Potato Pot is made with this report.
Policy
4.7 The application has been assessed with regard to strategic planning policy. The strategic policy base used to assess this application comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and the Cumbria Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy (Sub-RSS). The Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy carries material weight as the spatial planning framework for Cumbria’s Community Strategy.
4.8 The NPPF includes a number of core planning principles of relevance to this proposal. These include the need to: secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; support the transition to a low carbon future - encouraging the use of renewable resources; take into account the roles and character of different areas; and recognise the intrinsic beauty of the countryside and the importance of supporting thriving rural communities within it.
4.9 Paragraphs 97 and 98 of the NPPF give specific guidance on renewable energy. The NPPF states that local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from such sources. Authorities are encouraged to have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources; design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts; and consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources where this would help secure the development of such sources.
4.10 The NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy, and approve the application
4.11 Paragraph 109 outlines guidance in regard to conserving and enhancing the natural environment, which includes the need for the planning system to contribute to the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes.
4.12 In July 2013, the Department of Communities and Local Government published ‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewables and Low Carbon Energy’. The guidance provides advice on the planning issues associated with the development of renewable energy. Paragraph 1 clarifies that the guidance should be read alongside other planning practice guidance and the NPPF. The approach outlines by the guidance should therefore be given material weight in the assessment of this scheme.
4.13 Paragraph 5 of the guidance states that ‘The National Planning Policy Framework explains that all communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy, but this does not mean that the need for
Page 53 renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities’.
4.14 Paragraph 8 goes on to state that ‘…Local Planning Authorities will need to ensure they take into account the requirements of the technology and critically, the potential impacts on the local environment, including the cumulative impacts. The views of local communities likely to be affected should be listened to’.
4.15 Paragraph 9 notes that landscape character areas could form the basis for considering the location and scale of renewable energy developments, with local level assessments highlighted as an appropriate scale for assessing the likely landscape and visual impacts of individual proposals.
4.16 The guidance also clarifies the approach which should be taken to issues of noise, safety, electromagnetic transmissions, ecology, heritage and shadow flicker.
4.17 Section 5 of the Cumbria Sub-RSS outlines guidance on the delivery of the Strategy. Paragraph 5.2 states that:
The key to delivering a sustainable Cumbria is to ensure that through detailed consideration of the impacts, the benefits of development clearly outweigh the disbenefits and any potential negative effects are mitigated or have little or no impact. Developments will be reviewed in the context of their contribution to climate change.
4.18 Paragraph 5.3 outlines a set of development principles, which include: the need to avoid the loss of or damage to distinctive natural and cultural conservation features, (including landscapes and visually important public and private open space); secure high standards in design and construction, (including siting, scale, use of materials and landscaping which respect and where possible enhance the distinctive character of the townscape and landscape); ensure development is within infrastructure, community and service constraints; and minimise levels of light pollution and noise.
4.19 Additional guidance in regard to wind energy developments in Cumbria is contained in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which was adopted by Allerdale Borough Council in 2007. The SPD addresses the concurrent needs, outlined in the NPPF, for local planning authorities to prepare positive strategies in regard to renewable energy development, and conserve and enhance valued landscapes. The guidance includes a detailed landscape capacity assessment, which highlights the key characteristics and particular sensitivities which inform 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.
4.20 The SPD includes a detailed landscape capacity assessment, which highlights the key characteristics and particular sensitivities which inform the potential capacity of different landscape areas to support wind energy development. This
Page 54 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.
4.21 Cumbria Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CS 5 and Development Control Policy DC 16 relate to the restoration and aftercare schemes for working minerals and waste sites.
4.22 Allerdale Local Plan adopted policies include Policy EN25 : restricts development within the open countryside to that which is essential to meet a local need; Policy EN10 : relates specifically to development which has potential of contamination; Policy EN 19 : expects development to give regards to conservation and enhancement of landscapes; Policy EN24 : protects the character and features of parks and gardens of historic or landscape interest; Policy EN 32 : protects protected species animal or plant; Policy EN 5 : safeguards against pollution control; Policy CO18 : protects the setting of Listed Buildings; and Policy EM 17 : protects proposal for the replacement of existing and new overhead power lines.
4.23 Allerdale Borough Council Local Plan (Part 1) – Pre-submission draft (May 2013) is currently under consideration proposed Policy S19 relates to Renewable Energy and Low Carbon Technologies. At this moment in time this is not a material consideration which can be taken into account when determining this proposal.
Needs and Benefits
4.23 The needs and benefits of the proposed development relate to the fine balancing of the economic, social and environmental benefits which may outweigh any environmental impact of the proposed turbines.
4.24 he needs and benefits are important elements in the overall balance of the scheme. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.
4.25 The development of renewable energy resources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government’s commitments on both climate change and renewable energy. Positive planning which facilitates renewable energy developments can contribute to the Government’s overall strategy on sustainability and renewable energy development, as emphasised in the Energy White Paper (2007). The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009), the UK Energy Road Map (2011) and a number of other significant policies and commitments. The NPPF continues to give support to all forms of renewable energy development.
4.26 Cumbria County Council’s “Cumbria Renewable Energy Capacity and Deployment Study (August 2011)” confirms that the capacity of operational or consented renewable energy schemes in Cumbria totalled 285.36 MW. Cumbria Renewable Energy and Deployment Study considers renewable energy schemes for both power and heat. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy recognise the importance of both electricity and heat from renewable sources and seeks around 35% of electricity and heat to come from renewable and low
Page 55 carbon (non nuclear) sources by 2020. 70% of Cumbria’s source is located within the district of Allerdale.
4.27 The consented/installed capacity for power and heat from renewable energy is considered substantial and to make a positive contribution in addressing climate change.
4.28 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.
4.29 Whilst the scheme would make a minimal contribution towards regional and national targets for the production of energy from renewable sources it does contribute 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 economic benefits to local business. Achieving the binding national targets for the proportion of energy from renewable sources and the reductions sought in greenhouse gases can only by achieved by an accumulation of local projects of varying scale. Based on national performance a need for development of this type does exist. These are material considerations that weigh significantly in the planning balance.
4.30 The wider economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy schemes of whatever scale are material considerations and should be given weight in determining whether schemes are granted planning permission.
4.31 Cumbria has a target for 2015 to produce 284.8 MW of renewable energy. The latest figures available relate to March 2011 which indicated consented scheme within Cumbria equate to approximately 240-245 MW operational/approved. This figure exceeds the 2010 target but falls short of the 2015 target. (source : Cumbria Renewable Energy Capacity and Deployment study).
4.32 National policy strongly encourages the use of renewable energy sources to help offset greenhouse gas emissions and the increasing reliance on imported energy supplies. They form part of a mix of energy resources being supported by Government. The 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 off shore, as key to meeting these targets.
4.33 The Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 seeks to deliver European set targets that would increase renewable energy generation to cover 15% of the UK’s energy needs. To achieve the 10 fold increase substantial additional renewable electricity would be required. The Government sees the expansion of wind energy capacity, both on and off shore as key to meeting these targets.
4.34 The Sustainable Development Commission and other studies have set out that carbon emissions relating to the manufacturing and construction of the turbines and their concrete basis would be offset by the carbon saved from the renewable electricity production within the first 10-12 months of operation.
Page 56 4.35 National and Regional Planning Policies support development for renewable energy projects and the NPPF contains the national guidance on the need for local authorities to support and encourage low carbon energy proposals that do not cause unacceptable harm to the local environment.
4.36 To achieve the binding national targets for the proportion of energy from renewable sources and reductions sought in greenhouse gases can only be achieved by an accumulation of local projects of varying scale.
4.37 The proposed scheme would generate the electricity needs for 5,000 households.
Alternative Sites
4.38 Lillyhall landfill site has been identified as having the potential to develop. The developer has carried out a sequential test on alternative sites. A number of sites have been rejected due to the presence of isolated or small groups of properties at an insufficient separation distance to avoid potentially unacceptable noise and visual impacts (this factor severely restricts the feasibility of development across a large proportion of the UK), the presence of radio communication links or presence of communications equipment on site, cost/viability of being able to connect to the grid, landownership issues and the presence of other development including other wind energy developments in close proximity which would result in potential cumulative impact effects.
4.39 Of the sites taken into account some have been granted planning permission and others are either subject of planning applications awaiting determination or in the process of being prepared for submission.
Turbine Design
4.40 The design of the turbine would be considered at the time of insulation should the scheme be approved and implemented. It is difficult at this stage to assess the type of turbine as it would depend on what is available on the market at the time of construction. The candidate turbine is the Enercon E-70 which incorporates a transformer within the turbine tower.
4.41 The turbine towers would be tapered tubular steel construction. The blades would be made from fibre reinforced epoxy. The finish of the turbines would be a low reflectivity white, grey or off-white colour subject to agreement with the Local Planning Authority.
Turbine Foundations
4.42 Wind turbine foundations are typically square, hexagonal or circular in shape and comprise of reinforced concrete base measuring approximately 12-18 m in diameter and approximately 3 m deep. The concrete bases would be reinforced with a grid of steel reinforcement bars. The total volume of material to be excavated to form the turbines would be 750 m³. The final design of the foundations are designed to reflect the ground conditions on which they would be constructed.
Page 57 Crane Pads
4.43 Crane pads are required adjacent to the base of each turbine position. These would measure 35 m x 40 m x 400 mm. The pads would provide a level and firm base on which the cranes would operate. The pads would remain in place during the life of the permission as they may be needed for maintenance works to the turbines i.e. if a new generator is required or the blades need replacing. The pads would be covered by a layer of topsoil and seeded so as not to be visible.
Micrositing
4.44 The need for micrositing is recognised in the National Planning Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3, paragraph 2.7.23 indicates that “applicants are likely to need flexibility in a project consent to allow for any necessary micrositing of elements of the proposed wind farm after consent and during construction”. National Planning Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3, Paragraph 2.7.24 indicates that between 30-50 m is typical. In this instance the application boundary allows for 20 m micrositing of the turbines and to reflect ground conditions.
Impact on the Highway/Traffic Movements
4.45 The application site is located in a principally industrial area with a history of HGV use. The site is well located to the strategic road network. The site access would be 640 m from the A595(T) road which gives direct access onto the northern Lillyhall roundabout. The Lillyhall to Braithwaite Road (locally know as the Coal Road) has previously been used by the Coal Authority to transport coal supplies from the previous open cast workings which were located along this road.
4.46 Access to the site would be via an existing access which was previously used by the Coal Authority to transfer material from the former open cast workings. This is a purpose made access however alterations would be required to widen the access to accommodate the largest vehicles needed to deliver the turbine components. Visibility splays from the access are acceptable in both directions.
Page 58 4.47 During construction a large number of vehicle movements would be required. The predicated traffic generations for the site would be :
Activity Approximate No of vehicle Total trips loads (two way)
Stone
Sourced from borrow pits 0 0
(subject to a further investigation and planning consent)
Sourced from external quarries 397 794
Concrete
Location of supply plant (to 368 (concrete mixer, 6 m³) based 736 be determined) on foundations requiring 552m³ of concrete
Steel reinforcement 8 16
Blocks/miscellaneous 16 32 material
Cables 6 12
General Waste 4 8
Plant deliveries 2 (20 t excavator), 2 (8 t 26 excavator), 2 (tractor & trailer) 2 (machinery brought to site (dump trucks), 2 (ride on rollers) by low loader) 3 (welfare cabins)
Abnormal loads 3 cranes, 5 low loaders, 52 each 120 turbines is contained in 13 transport units (4 no turbines)
Site access junction 10 (10 loads assumed for 20 temporary junction construction)
Total
Stone from borrow pits 485 970
Stone from external quarries 883 1764
Page 59 This is further broken down in total trips (two way trips per month) distributed according to the construction programme would be :
Activity Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Plant and equipment delivery 26
Site track construction 814
Turbine foundations 250 251 251 8
Substation building 8 8 8 8
Cabling and electrical systems 2 2 2 2 2 2
Turbine delivery, erection and 8 37 37 38 commissioning
Total trips (imported roadstone) 1098 253 261 10 10 47 39 46
Total trips (borrow pits) 304 253 261 10 10 47 39 46
4.48 Transport routes for the delivery of the turbines are expected to be via A1(M), A66 and A595(T) or M6, A66 and A595(T). This is dependant on the manufacturers base for the turbines.
4.49 From the access junction a new track would be constructed to allow access onto the site. The proposed track would have a typical surface width of 4 m this may be wider on the track curves. Construction of the track would involve stripping and storage of soils, grading to appropriate levels followed by laying a geotextile membrane. Crushed stone would make up the track to a nominal depth of 400 mm and would be constructed to a permeable surface.
4.50 Transport figures could be significantly reduced if a borrow pit could be utilised on site. A borrow pit is where material is excavated and used to make up ground close to a site. This would reduce 304 vehicle movements on the public highway. Investigations would be undertaken to determine if a borrow pit could be utilised on site if planning permission was to be granted. Borrow Pits would be subject of a separate planning application.
4.51 The Highway Authority have raised no objection to the proposal subject to appropriately worded conditions being imposed with regards to construction method statement and construction traffic management plans being imposed on the granting of any planning permission. The Highway Agency also raised no objection to the proposal.
Page 60 Historical Environment
4.52 The site does not have any archaeological interests as this is currently used as a landfill site. However, the proposal could have an impact on important features in the locality. There are a number of Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings in close proximity which could be impacted namely :
Workington Hall - 4.2 km
Little Clifton Open Heap Coke Producing Bases – 4.2 km
Jane Pit – 4.2 km
Calva Hall Bridge – 3.3 km
Defended Enclosure at Salterbeck – 3.1 km
Medieval Standing Cross in St Oswalds Churchyard – 4.1 km
Hayes Castle – 3.6 km
Stone Circle and a Round Cairn on Dean Moor - 2.6 km
St Michael’s House Grade II* - 4.8 km
Church of St Michael’s Grade II* - 4.9 km
Helena Thompson Museum and Stables Grade II * - 3.9 km
Church of St John and adjoining parish rooms Grade II* - 4.1 km
Church of St Oswald Grade I – 4.1km
Branthwaite Hall Grade 1 – 3.5 km
Wythemoor Sough Grade II – 0.5 km
Crakeplace Hall Grade II* - 4.0 km
4.53 There are also five designated cultural heritage assets which form the outer study area. These are scheduled monuments identified by English Heritage and date from the Roman period. Four of these assets form part of the core area of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site :
Maryport (Alavna) Roman Fort – 2.6 km
Rise Howe Tower – 9.9 km
Papcastle Roman Fort – 10.4 km
Burrow Walls Roman Fort – 5.5 km
Parton Roman Fort – 6.2 km
Page 61 4.54 The most notable impact of the proposal would be on the residential property of Wythemoor Sough and would detract from the rural nature and setting of the Listed Building due to its proximity being only 0.5 km from the nearest turbine.
4.55 The County Council’s Archaeologist agrees that the information contained in the Environmental Statement would have a minimal impact on the archaeology in the area. However, the Conservation Officer for Allerdale Borough Council is concerned that the proposal would have an impact on the setting of a Listed Building in close proximity to the site and would impact on other Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Listed Buildings in the area.
Noise
4.56 The applicant has carried out a comprehensive noise assessment and a cumulative noise impact assessment taking into account the Winscale’s and Potato Pot site’s. The evidence in the EIA contests that the scheme complies with ETSU-R-97 guidance (The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Turbines).
4.57 Baseline noise levels have been measured at three locations Cumberland Lodge, Wythemoor House and Wythemoor Head Farm. Noise levels are expressed in decibels. Noise in the environment is measured using the A weighted dB scale which includes a correction for the response of the human ear to noises with different frequencies. General context of noise in the environment are :
Source of Activity Indicative noise level dB(A)
Threshold of pain 140
Jet aircraft at 250 m 105
Pneumatic drill at 7 m 95
City traffic 90
Truck at 30 mph at 100 m 65
Busy general office 60
Car at 40 mph at 100 m 55
Wind farm at 350 m 35-45
Quiet bedroom 20
Rural night time background 20-40
Threshold of hearing 0
Source : Indicative noise from wind turbines
Page 62 4.58 Daytime hours ETSU-97 states that noise level limits are 35-40 dB(A) or 5 dB(A) above the prevailing background as measures during quiet day time periods which ever is the greater. Night time noise limit is 43 dB(A) or 5 dB(A) above the prevailing night time background which ever is the greater. The 43 dB(A) lower limit is based on sleep disturbance criteria of 35 dB(A) with an allowance of 10 dB(A) for attenuation through an open window.
4.59 The report concludes that both daytime and night time noise levels would be below the recommended noise limits. With regards to the cumulative noise levels this is below the recommended noise limits.
4.60 Allerdale Environmental Health have assessed the information within the EIA and the additional cumulative noise impact report and have no objections to the proposal. However they have recommended that conditions be imposed on the granting of any planning permission protecting the amenity of nearby residential properties.
4.61 New guidance has been published “A good practice guide to the application of ETSU-R-97 for the assessment and rating of wind turbine noise”. This could have implications on this application if this is determined after the consideration of the Potato Pot application the application would need to carry out a cumulative noise assessment reducing the level by 10 dB(a) to taking into account the Potato Pot scheme this would be visa versa if this scheme obtained permission prior to Potato Pot decision then the Potato Pot scheme would need to consider this proposal.
Shadow Flicker
4.62 Shadow flicker is a material consideration when determining planning applications for wind turbines. National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure describes shadow flicker as “Shadow flicker is the effect caused when an operating turbine is located between the sun and a receptor, such as a dwelling or place of work. The effect occurs when the shadow of the rotating blades falls over the dwelling causing the light intensity within the specific affected rooms of the occupied building to fluctuate.”
4.63 Shadow flicker can have two types of impacts namely to health and residential amenity. Around 0.5% of the population is epileptic and of these around 5% are photo-sensitive. Of photosensitive epileptics less than 5% are sensitive to the lowest frequencies of 2.3 Hz; the remainder are sensitive only to higher frequencies. The flicker caused by wind turbines is equal to the blade passing frequency. A fast moving three blade machine will give rise to the highest level of flicker frequency. These levels are well below 2 Hz. The new generation of wind turbines are known to operate at levels below 1 Hz. The proposed turbines would operate at frequencies between 0.3 % to 1.4 Hz which are less than those capable of giving rise to possible health effects.
4.64 Tall structures such as wind turbines cast shadows which can vary in length depending on the sun’s altitude and position. Rotating turbine blades cast moving shadows, which under certain conditions cause flickering. When the blades rotate the shadow flicks on and off, the effect is known at ‘shadow flicker’.
Page 63 It only occurs inside building where the flicker appears through a narrow window opening. Although problems caused by shadow flicker are rare for sites where existing development may be subject to this problem, applicants for wind turbine installations should provide an analysis to quantify the effect.
4.65 There is no guidance within the English planning system on the criteria that should be implemented to determine the need for mitigation of shadow flicker. However in PPS18 (Northern Ireland) and in Wind Energy Development Guidelines 2006 published by the Irish Government Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government paragraph 5.12 recommends “it is recommended that shadow flicker at neighbouring offices and dwellings within 500m should not exceed 30 hours per year or 30 minutes per day. Whilst this has not been adopted by the English Planning System it is a useful indicator.
4.66 There are eight potential receptors within the 700 m assessment zone where shadow flicker may be particularly noticeable – Wythemoor Head, Wythemoor Sough, Wythemoor House, Whyeclose, Gale House and 3 units on Lillyhall Industrial Estate. All eight of the potential receptors properties lie outside of the umbra (a structure casts a sharp well-defined dense shadow when it is completely obscured by the sun), where shadow flicker is particularly noticeable. The penumbra (where the structure is only partially obscured by the site then a fainter shade is cast) predicted for six receptors that have a range of calculated obscuration’s of between 10% and 46%. Allowing for periods when the sun is not shining brightly and the wind is not blowing or the turbines are turned edgewise, to the receptor it is calculated that no property would be affected for more than 35 days per year and that no property within the assessment zone would be exposed to more than 17 days of shadow flicker per year. One receptor on the industrial estate would exceed the duration criteria.
4.67 Shadow flicker only affects rooms in occupation at the times of the event. Mitigation to these rooms could be the installation of window blinds or curtains. The report concludes that shadow flicker would not have an adverse impact on receptors health and that mitigation in the way of window blinds may be sufficient to mitigate against shadow flicker in rooms.
4.68 The results of the impacts on shadow flicker would not be fully known until the wind turbines would be operational. Should consent be granted a condition would need to be imposed to ensure the safeguarding of nearby receptors. An appropriately worded condition would be imposed to ensure that a mitigation strategy is agreed prior to the commissioning of the turbines, this would include automatic turbine shut down if shadow flicker becomes an issue for any nearby receptors.
Biodiversity
4.69 The proposed location of the wind turbines would be on an active landfill site which was previously used as office accommodation for open cast mining and also has been included as part of the active landfill site since 1971. The site has therefore previously been quite extensively disturbed. An extended phase 1 habitat survey has been undertaken taking into account various species and habitats associated with the study area. The Ecological baseline conditions have been assessed through a combination of desk studies and field survey
Page 64 works. Potential impacts are construction period, operation, maintenance and decommissioning.
4.70 An extended Phase 1 habitat survey was carried out in May 2010 covering the whole of the study area and included evaluation in terms of mammal surveys for Otters, Badgers, Bats, Red Squirrels, Amphibians and Birds. Habitats and plant species of particular interest were also targeted.
4.71 The siting of the proposed turbines has been considered to provide the minimum damage/disturbance to biodiversity interests due to the former and existing activities on the application site.
4.72 The County Ecologist has assessed the information submitted and is happy that the findings in the report are reasonable and that these have been undertaken thoroughly in respect of the conclusion for which included barn owls, hen harriers and gulls. Should planning permission be granted a condition would be required to ensure nesting birds are not impacted on during construction phase.
Landscape Impact
4.73 Consideration of the development has been carried out within the Zone of Theoretical Visual (ZTV) assessment. This assessment considers the proposed development within 3 zones ie ‘dominant’ (up to 2.4 km) ‘prominent’ (2.4 to 6 km) and ‘conspicuous’ (6-12 km). The proposal has been considered against all three scenarios.
4.74 Dominant – up to 2.4 km - The site lies within Landscape type 5 ‘Lowland’ as defined by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCGT). The CLCGT further refines type 5 inform sub-types the majority of the site (87%) lies within landscape subtype 5a ‘ridge and valley’ with the remainder of the site on its eastern boundary lying within sub type 5d ‘urban fringe’ (turbine 1 straddles the boundary between the sub types 2, 3, 4 lie in 5a).
4.75 Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) judges Type 5 as having moderate capacity overall to accommodate turbine development. The SPD goes on to give the following detailed guidance for the assessment of individual schemes :
“Greatest potential occurs in the open flatter areas and broad ridge top where small or in exceptional circumstances large turbine groups could relate to the medium to large scale landform without dominating wide views and integrate with regular field patterns. The sense of exposure in these areas would also evoke a sense of purpose and rationality. In the more sheltered and enclosed valleys or undulating fringes turbine development would feel over dominant and conflict with more irregular land cover patters.
Whilst significant interruption by relief and vegetation would assist absorption in the wider landscape these same features are likely to result in unpredictable relationships between turbines and variable skyline with intensifying or disturbing effects such as framing or blade flash over valley rims. A key characteristic limiting capacity is the dispersed pattern of numerous small rural settlements making it difficult to site development
Page 65 sufficiently distant so as not to adversely affect their sense of scale and character. Settlement size and pattern suggest that up to a small group of turbines would generally be appropriate. Other more localised sensitivities include potential erosion of peaceful rural backwater qualities and impact on valued views from neighbouring high ground or coast, important valleys and towns such as Workington within them.”
4.76 The Wind Energy SPD highlights the linkages which exist between individual landscape character types, and notes that a number often exist in close proximity to one another with relatively small geographical areas. Given the wide ranging zones of visibility typically associated with wind turbines development it is therefore appropriate to consider the impact of such development upon adjacent landscape types. Several landscape types lie within the zone wherein the SPD states that turbines are likely to be seen as ‘dominant’ (up to 2.4 km) ‘prominent’ (2.4 to 6 km) and ‘conspicuous’ (6-12 km). It is therefore appropriate to consider the impact of the turbines upon these character types. The applicants Zone of Theoretical Visual assessment indicates that the turbines would be visible over a large proportion of the landscape up to 6 km – although this is limited to the north by the Derwent Valley and in the south by the High Park ridge.
4.77 The majority of the area within 2.4 km of the turbines lies within landscape sub- type 5a ‘Lowland Ridge and Valley’. The proposed wind turbines would have a significant impact at close range and a ‘wind farm’ landscape would be created. The extent of this area varies according to individual landscape characteristics. In the applicant’s view this would extend 400 m from the proposed turbines. It is agreed that this would be to the north landform and built development would restrict views to an extent although to the south topography a relative absence of development would mean that the turbines would likely exert a very strong influence upon the local landscape beyond 400 m.
4.78 Beyond the immediate zone of influence at distances of up to 2.4 km, turbines are likely to be seen as a dominant element on the landscape. In this case in the applicants view the existing Winscales turbine development has created a new landscape sub type within 5a ‘Ridge and Valley with Wind Turbines’, within 2-3 km of the Winscale turbines. It is key to note that this area is not defined by turbines rather turbines can be regarded as a key landscape characteristic.
4.79 Prominent – 3-6 km - The landscape types within 3-6 km zone are namely 5c ‘Rolling Lowland’, 5d ‘Urban Fringe’, 9a ‘Open Moorlands’, 9d ‘Ridges’ and 12b ‘Rolling Fringe. An assessment for each landscape type is given below :
4.80 5c Rolling Lowland – The proposed turbines would be clearly visible from the area. They would be a skyline feature, which at a distance of 3-6 km would have a dominant effect upon the smaller scale rolling wooded agricultural landscape. The impact of the turbines would be mitigated to an extent however by their regular spacing, relatively even height and number (regarded by the Wind Energy SPD as a ‘small group’) would allow them to be regarded as a discrete element on the skyline. In my view therefore whilst some conflict is raised with CLCGT guidance the overall integrity of this would remain intact.
Page 66 4.81 5d Urban Fringe – The turbines would be clearly visible becoming a prominent feature to the point where in the applicant’s view a new sub-type would be created ‘Lowland Urban Fringe with Wind Turbines’. This assessment is agreed with. The CLCGT does not highlight any particular sensitivity to vertical infrastructure/turbine development. Given the urban/industrial influence which is clearly apparent the turbines would not significantly detract from the existing landscape character.
4.82 9a Open Moorlands – The turbines would be most prominent when looking northwards towards the Solway Firth. These views are panoramic from higher view points such as Pica and more restricted from lower elevations such as Gilgarran. The turbines would be seen in the context of industrial development and existing turbine development. There would be affect to an extent although not to the point where this would significantly affect the integrity of the area.
4.83 9d Ridges – The area includes the elevated High Park ridge which is designated as Open Access land. The proposed turbines would be clearly visible in views northwards from this ridge. Again these would be seen in the wider context of the surrounding industrial development. The character of the area would be affected to an extent although not to the point where this would significantly affect the integrity of the area.
4.84 12b Rolling Fringe – The proposed turbines would be visible as a skyline feature where they would be visible and would result in an impact on the ‘Rolling Landscape’.
4.85 Conspicuous – 6-12 km - The 12 km zone includes a number of different landscape types. The distance from the scheme in proportion to the area affected would mean that the impact upon these areas is not likely to be significant.
Visual Impact Assessment
4.86 A visual impact assessment of the proposal has been carried out within a 6 km zone. I would generally concur with the assessment with regards to the predicted impacts of the proposed development alone. The assessment has taken into consideration the impacts on :
Gilgarran - visibility of the turbines would occur throughout the village with the most prominent views being from the northern edge of the village. The effects are considered to be significant.
High Harrington – visibility would be largely restricted by woodland belt planting on the eastern edge of the village. The effects are considered to be significant for a limited number of properties affected.
Distington – visibility would be focussed around the northern and eastern edge of the town. The effects in part of the village would be considered to be significant and a prominent skyline feature however on other parts views would be restricted and would not be significant.
Page 67 Braithwaite – the majority of the village is likely to be screened from view due to the topography of the village in relation to the application site. The impact is likely to be when travelling west on the minor road which runs through the town.
Workington – visibility would be restricted to the eastern edge of the town and it is considered to be ameliorated to an extent by woodland planting. Any affected properties are considered to experience significant effects.
Pica – the village is 2.8 km south of the proposed development and it is considered that there would be a significant impact on the north side of the village.
Winscales – the village is 1 km north of the closest wind turbines it is considered that there would be a significant impact on the southern side of the hamlet.
Dean – the village lies 4 km east of the proposed turbines it is considered that the turbines would be seen simultaneously with the existing Winscale turbines in the same line of view. The proposed turbines would increase the presence of turbines in this view. It is considered that there would be a major/moderate significant effect on the village.
Seaton – the proposed scheme would be seen beyond the prominent Winscales turbines viewed at distance. The Winscales turbines result in pre-existing significant visual effect which the proposed lillyhall turbines would slightly reinforce.
Stainburn (3.5 km N), Bridgefoot (4.5 km NE) and Great Clifton (4.5 km N) would experience limited views of the turbines the visual effects on these settlements are not considered significant.
4.87 The landscape designation in closest proximity to the site is the Lake District National Park. It is located approximately 7 km east of the proposed development. Visibility within the National Park would mainly be restricted to areas of higher ground most notably Mosser Fell. Given the distance from the site and the fact that the turbines would form a relatively small element in the wider panoramic view which encompasses a variety of land use types it is not considered that the development would result in significant impacts upon the National Park.
4.88 Other considerations also include the Solway Coast AONB and St Bees Heritage Coast which are both located approximately 12 km from the site. Again there would be no significant impact up on these designations.
4.89 Some highway and recreational routes would also be significantly impacted with regards to users of the road network including sections of the A595, A596 and A597 as well as minor road networks. Cumbria Coastal Way is within 1 km and National Cycle Route 72 of the proposed site there would be a significant impact on these two cycle networks. There would be less significant impacts on National Cycle Route 71, Regional Route 10 or the Allerdale Ramble. There would also be predicted significant impacts on local public rights of way and bridleways in close proximity to the site.
Page 68 Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact
4.90 The cumulative landscape and visual effects of wind turbine development are key considerations in area where a number of individual schemes exist or are proposed. The Wind Energy SPD contains detailed guidance on the cumulative effects of turbine development. Scottish Natural Heritage have produced useful guidance on assessing cumulative effects which are referred to by the applicant. As more wind energy schemes are developed, cumulative impact is becoming an increasingly important consideration. This is reflected in the most recent edition of the industry standard ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (April 2013).
4.91 The Wind Energy SPD recommends a 30 km zone around a site as an appropriate distance within which to consider cumulative effects. There are currently 10 schemes (72 turbines). 5 schemes have been consented (7 turbines) and 9 schemes (16 turbines) are awaiting a decision which all lie within 30 km of the Lillyhall proposal. The good practice guidance recommend that landscape cumulative impact assessments should take into account both existing and proposed schemes. The relative weight to be given to unconsented and unbuilt schemes in the decision making process is a matter of planning judgement.
4.92 The cumulative impact assessment makes a clear distinction between the baseline situation which has been regarded as including existing built schemes only and a theoretical scenario where proposed schemes have been taken into account.
4.93 Key importance to the assessment is the ‘Potato Pot’ scheme, an application submitted to Allerdale Borough Council in 2012 to construct three 100 m turbines to the south east of the Lillyhall site. The distance between the Lillyhall and Potato Pot turbines at their closest would be 800m. A public inquiry took place mid April 2013 (decision pending).
4.94 The Wind Energy SPD Part 1, Section 3 ‘Guidelines for Cumulative Effects’ states in regard to the Solway Basin and West Cumbria that “Multiple developments across this area … raise issues of cumulative effects on visual amenity in respect of residents and tourists. Lower lying parts are heavily populated with a dense pattern of settlements and where there is a need to ensure that schemes do not become too dominating or overbearing. The setting of Workington, already substantially surrounded by turbines, is an obvious example of this. However, the sense of scale and character of smaller settlements and amenity of residents with them could be vulnerable.”
4.95 Part 2 of the SPD gives further detailed guidance on the assessment of cumulative effects. Policy LG3 states that “The limiting cumulative threshold for wind energy development should be based on a well-considered judgement informed by analysis of : degree or magnitude of change; nature of the potential change reflecting the inherent sensitivity of the effected landscape(s); value attached to the effected landscape(s) or specific elements in it and key views; landscape change objectives for the effects landscape(s)”. The degree of landscape change is dependent upon whether the development is read as an isolated feature, key characteristics or dominant characteristic. The degree of
Page 69 visual change relates primarily to changes to the composition of the view, density, proximity, proportion, prominence and frequency.
4.96 Paragraph 129 of the SPD goes on to consider “Multiple wind energy developments can appear as separate individual entities in the landscape or where a new proposal either extends or is adjacent to an operational or approved scheme the cumulative effect would principally be that of enlargement of the original scheme (i.e. where the distance between development is less than the length of either scheme). Even if physically separated development may be close enough (within approx. 6 km) to appear as a single entity from some viewpoints. In both instances the combined visual effect is likely to be greater than the original scheme or for each development alone. Where development appears together and overlap differences in design as size, turbine height, layout and blade rotation speeds may also create a jarring effect and cumulative effects may be judged unacceptable on the basis of incompatibility in design”.
4.97 Cumulative visual effects can be experienced in three principal ways – ‘combined’ (where multiple wind farms can be seen in the same frame of view), ‘successive’ where multiple wind farms are visible from a view point if the receptor turns 360 degrees and ‘sequential’ where views of multiple schemes are experienced successively when travelling along a route.
4.98 A number of existing schemes lie within the 30 km zone. The applicants have assessed the cumulative impact on these schemes upon local landscape character. It is considered that the main schemes of relevance to be those that lie within the 6 km zone – since those which lie outside this area are sufficiently well separated from the proposed scheme, so as not to raise major issues in regard to landscape character. The key developments are Winscales I and II (18 turbines ranging in height from 69 to 81 m to blade tip), which lie within 2 km to the north of the proposed development and Fairfield Farm (5 turbines 81 m to blade tip) which lie 4 km to the south.
4.99 The applicant notes that in the area 2-3 km from the Winscales development a new landscape sub type within 5a has been created ‘Ridge and Valley with Wind Turbines’. The development of this scheme would reinforce this characteristic but not to the point where wind farms would define the character of the local landscape. The impact of the proposal in cumulative landscape character terms would be more significant upto the rural landscape to the east – but the development would be perceived as a separate element in the landscape due to its distance from Winscales and its relevant height. The overall proportion of the skyline occupied by wind turbines would be increased but not to a point where it would override the inherent character of the rural area.
4.100 The area within 3 km of the site contains a number of settlements, roads and rights of way upon which the applicant considers there will be significant effects. The Environmental Statement (6.15.7, 8.9) states :
With regard to visual effects the addition of Lillyhall to the full baseline would result in significant cumulative effects from Gilgarran, Pica, High Harrington, Distington, Workington and Dean. However it must be noted that from High Harrington Workington and Dean the effects would predominately reinforce pre-existing significant effects resulting from the
Page 70 operational schemes within the area (primarily Winscales and Fairfield Farm). Only from Gilgarran and Pica are significant cumulative effects identified which were not pre-existing as a result of the operational schemes in the study area.
Combined views of Lillyhall and Fairfield Farm would result in significant cumulative effects travelling southbound along the A596 and A597 for 2 km and 1 km lengths respectively with Weddicar Rigg and Watch Hill contributing when also considering the proposals.
With regards to recreational routes the addition of Lillyhall to the baseline and proposals would result in significant cumulative effects from a 1 km length of the Cumbria Coastal Way north of Whitehaven and a 2 km length of National Cycle Route 72 west of Distington.
4.101 It is agreed that the applicants conclusion “significant cumulative landscape and visual effects would be localised in extent and it is considered that they would not be unacceptable”.
4.102 The applicant has assessed the cumulative impact of the Potato Pot scheme (LVIA update 2013) and concludes that the main effect of the scheme would be to reinforce existing cumulative landscape effects. Concern is raised that the addition of the Potato Pot scheme would fundamentally change the impact of both Lillyhall and the baseline schemes.
4.103 In close proximity to the site the applicant has judged the area of direct influence to extend 400 m from the site. The information submitted in support of the Potato Pot application concludes what the area of direct influence would extend 700 m from the site. These two areas would therefore coalesce creating a significant cumulative effect in close proximity to the site. The setting of the small settlement of Gilgarran would in particular be dominated by the two schemes.
4.104 In wider views it is concerned that the proximity between Potato Pot and Lillyhall would mean that they would be regarded as a single large group of turbines (a large group defined as 6-9 turbines). Whilst the turbines are of a similar height and layout the gap between the two would present an awkward image being not sufficiently large to distinguish between them as separate schemes, but not sufficiently small to allow them to be perceived as a well designed single large group.
4.105 Given this concern is raised that together they would have a dominant effect upon the undulating rural landscape to the east from where they will often be seen as a prominent skyline feature. The cumulative impact with Winscales is also exacerbated since the overall proportion of the skyline occupied by turbines development is increased.
4.106 As with the landscape character the applicant has concluded that Potato Pot would primarily reinforce existing cumulative visual effects. Again however concern is raised that the addition of Potato Pot would result in a fundamental change. The Wind Energy SPD states in regard to ‘Settlement and Key Views’ that landscape type 5 has a high sensitivity to turbine development, stating that there is –“limited scope to site development away from settled areas. Size of
Page 71 development constrained by small scale nature of existing settlements with potential for over dominance”. Settings, gateways and vistas are highlighted generally as characteristics which are sensitive to the cumulative effects of turbine development.
4.107 A large number of residential receptors are located within the 3 km zone, where visual impact is likely to be significant. In my view there is sufficient distance between the schemes for them to be seen as clearly separate, thereby limiting the scope for the underlying character of the landscape to reassert its dominance. When viewed from Distington, Pica and Gilgarran the addition of Potato Pot would significantly increase the overall proportion of key views from which are dominated by wind turbines.
4.108 A number of isolated properties (Wythmoor House, Whythemoor Head, Whyeclose and Wythmoor Sough) lie within 1 km of both the Potato Pot and Lillyhall sites. The applicant has assessed the cumulative impact of both schemes upon these properties. Significant cumulative effects are predicted from the addition of Lillyhall, although it is noted that views of the latter from these properties would generally be oblique and/or restricted in some way. The applicants have not indicated whether or not the two schemes taken together would raise conflict with regards to the Lavender Test. It is noted in this regards, that of the two schemes Potato Pot is most likely to impact upon main views from the properties. It is clear that these properties would experience significant cumulative effects.
4.109 Whilst significant visual impact upon road and recreational users would be limited to the area within 3 km of the site, the affected area can be regarded as forming part of the gateway to the west coast urban area. The impact upon the setting of these settlements particularly Workington which as the CLCGT notes is already affected by turbine development and is therefore a key consideration.
4.110 The Wind Energy SPD illustrated the key issues raised by the proposal (Part 1, para 3.22) : In order to meet government targets for renewable energy and help reduce negative climate change impacts multiple schemes may need to be accepted as a defining characteristic in some of Cumbria’s landscapes. However, landscape and visual effects, effects on certain bird populations such as Hen Harriers and other planning issues might limit the amount of wind energy development that can take place in some parts of Cumbria, unless overriding social, economic or environmental benefits are demonstrated”.
4.111 In my view whilst the construction of the Lillyhall scheme would result in some significant landscape and visual impacts I do not consider when considering both individually and cumulatively against the existing baseline that the scheme would raise fundamental conflict with CLCGT guidance.
4.112 However, the construction of both the Potato Pot and Lillyhall schemes would significantly increase the dominance of turbines upon local landscape character within 6 km of the site to the point where parts of types 5a, 5c, 9a and 9d would become defined by wind energy development. Thus would raise fundamental conflict with the guidance and vision for these types outlined in the CLCGT. The construction of both schemes would also result in significant adverse visual impacts within the 3 km zone which is notable, given the amount of visual
Page 72 receptors affected within this area (mainly residents, but also those using the local road and public right of way network). The proposed upgrade of the National Grid is also an important consideration when considering the cumulative impact of vertical structure upon the local area.
Supplementary Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
4.113 A meeting was held between Planning Officers and the Agent and it was agreed the additional information would be submitted in order to address some key points derived from the initial landscape response. The additional information is predicated upon the development of both the Potato Pot and Lillyhall turbine schemes.
4.114 The applicant explains how local topography has been considered, to derive the extent of the ‘wind farm landscape’ which would be created in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Lillyhall development. The applicant concludes that this would extend from between 400-600m of the site. It is stated that the wind farm landscapes of the Potato Pot and Lillyhall schemes would coalesce, but this coalescence would be limited to an area of intermediate ground between the landfill site and the restored open cast workings of Potato Pot, to which there is no public access.
4.110 It is agreed that the methodology applied is robust, and with the predicted extent of the wind farm landscape and area of coalescence.
4.111 Concern remains however, in regard to the impact of the wind farm landscapes associated with Potato Pot and Lillyhall upon the setting of Gilgarran. Whilst it is noted that the area of coalescence is limited to approximately 300m of intermediate land, the addition of Lillyhall would extend the wind farm landscape created by Potato Pot for a distance of up to 2.5km, running in a NW-SE direction, to the north of the settlement.
4.112 Additional cumulative wireframe visualisations (including from additional viewpoints), were provided and further information on the cumulative effects upon the character of the rural landscape to the east, and cumulative visual effects within the local area - A number of additional visualisations have been submitted, which seek to facilitate more detailed consideration of the cumulative impact of the scheme upon the rural area to the east, and key settlements.
Landscape Character
4.113 The applicant concludes that the Lillyhall and Potato Pot schemes would be perceived as discrete developments in the wider landscape. Having considered the additional visualisations submitted, I would agree that this would be the case. This addresses the concern highlighted originally, that the two schemes would be regarded as a single, large group of turbines.
4.114 Concern remains however, in regard to the density of turbine development in this area – in particular, the area between the Winscales wind farm, and the proposed Potato Pot site. The visualisations clarify the cumulative impact of the existing and proposed development upon the rural character of the landscape to the east, from where the turbines would be clearly visible as a skyline feature.
Page 73 Whilst the Lillyhall and Potato Pot schemes may be perceived as discrete developments, the density of turbine development in this relatively small area limits the ability of the underlying character of the landscape to reassert its dominance.
4.115 The applicant concludes that three landscape sub types ‘with wind turbines’ would be created by the Winscales, Lillyhall and Potato Pot developments. These sub types would extend up to 2.4km from the turbines, and would coalesce, although the schemes themselves would not.
4.116 Whilst it is noted that the schemes themselves would not coalesce, there is still concerns that the new sub type ‘landscape with wind turbines’ would extend for several kilometres around the three developments, with the siting of Lillyhall, between Potato Pot and Winscales, eroding the separation between the latter two.
Visual Effects
4.117 Further assessment of the cumulative visual effects upon the settlements of Gilgarran, Pica and Distington has been undertaken. The applicant concludes that each settlement lies outside the ‘wind farm landscape’ created in the immediate vicinity of the Potato Pot and Lillyhall developments. The assessment concludes that the separation between the Potato Pot and Lillyhall schemes would mitigate impact.
4.118 The above points are noted. However, whilst the schemes would be regarded as discrete developments, they would be simultaneously visible from these settlements, and the proportion of views in which turbines would be a prominent element would be increased. Whilst each settlement lies outside the immediate ‘wind farm landscape’, wherein turbines are considered the defining characteristic, they are all located within 3 km of the Lillyhall and/or Potato Pot schemes. The Wind Energy SPD states that at distances of up to 2.4 km, turbines are likely to be seen as ‘dominant’, and at distances of 2.4 to 6 km, ‘prominent’.
4.119 At approximately 1.5 km south of the Lillyhall scheme, and 1.1 km south of the Potato Pot scheme, Gilgarran is the settlement located in closest proximity to both of these developments. The centre of the village would be largely screened from views, although the assessment indicates that the turbines would be clearly visible from properties located on the northern edge of the village. Where visible, the turbines will form a dominant, key element of the view northwards.
4.120 Pica is a linear settlement, located approximately 2.7 km south of the Lillyhall site, and 2.6 km south of the Potato Pot site. The properties on the northern edge of the village directly face both. The view northwards from the settlement is panoramic, including industrial and urban areas. Several existing turbine developments, including Winscales, are apparent in the wider view, although they are located beyond the ridge which lies south of the Winscales development - which forms a visual barrier. The development of the Lillyhall and Potato Pot schemes would intensify the impact of turbines in views northwards, by extending their influence into the area to the south east of this ridge, which is
Page 74 more open and rural in character. The applicant’s assessment notes that the properties at the far eastern and western ends of the village would also have sequential views of the (operational) Fairfield Farm turbine development, and the Weddicar Rigg scheme (currently the subject of appeal, decision pending), to the south. These schemes would be located at a similar 1 - 3 km distance from the village as the Potato Pot and Lillyhall schemes. The encircling effect, at this range, would be highly dominant in my view.
4.121 Distington is located approximately 2.1 km to the south west of the Lillyhall site, and 3 km south west of the Potato Pot site. The settlement lies approximately 3 km north of the Fairfield Farm development, the blades of which are visible on the skyline. From properties in the higher parts of settlement, the blades of the Lillyhall and Potato Pot turbines would be clearly visible on the skyline, and would, through their form and movement, form a prominent element of the view. The visualisations show that there is clear separation between the latter two schemes and the Fairfield Farm development, thereby reducing the simultaneous cumulative visual impact of all three. The Potato Pot and Lillyhall schemes would intensify the visual impact of turbines upon Distington, although visibility of the turbines would be restricted in the lower part of the settlement.
4.122 The mitigating factors highlighted by the applicant, are noted but there remains concern in regard to the significant cumulative visual effects upon the above noted settlements.
4.123 Further information has been submitted to asses the cumulative effects upon residential visual amenity for properties within 1 km of Lillyhall. Including a review of the Potato Pot LVIA – Originally it was noted that in regard to the Lavender Test, the Potato Pot scheme was likely to have the main impact, although the applicants had not at that time, considered the impact of both the Lillyhall and Potato Pot schemes together. The additional information submitted considers the impact of both schemes upon properties within the 1km zone, concluding that whilst cumulative effects would be significant, the proposed wind turbines would not represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence (ie conflict with the Lavender Test). I would agree with this assessment.
4.124 Further information has been submitted to asses the cumulative visual effects on the A595 corridor - The applicant concludes that the Lillyhall development would extend the overall extent of the route upon which there would be significant visual effects arising from turbine development. I would agree with this assessment. The assessment concludes that potential cumulative effects arising from pylons are limited by their separation distance from the Lillyhall site.
4.125 These remain concerns as to the potential cumulative impact of vertical infrastructure generally upon the Bridgefoot – Parton section of the road, arising from turbines and pylons, to which the Lillyhall development would contribute. Lines of pylons run along both sides of the road for much of this stretch, and create visual clutter with turbine development. The impact upon character is mitigated to a degree to the south of Winscales, which is more industrial in nature. The area to the north of Winscales is more rural however, and the impact is more marked.
Page 75 4.126 Local representations have been received with regards to the impact the proposed development would have on the landscape and visual impact of the area. The concerns are valid planning reasons for objection and have been taken into consideration when preparing this section of the report.
Lavender Test
4.127 The Lavender Test has been coined by landscape and planning professionals with a reference to past appealed decisions by Inspector Lavender who provided guidance on the threshold of accessibility of wind turbine proposals in relation to residential amenity in a number of planning reports. The key issues relate to a consideration of the effects of the proposal to establish if ‘turbines are present in a number, size and proximity that they represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in the main view from house or garden’ (Enifer Downs Appeal).
Effects on Living Conditions
4.128 The proposed scheme would have a direct impact on 13 properties within a 1 km radius. It is considered that the visual effects on these properties would be significant with regards to environmental impact. At many recent wind farm inquiries the Lavender Test has played a major role in assessing the impact of wind turbines on individual living conditions in particular properties which have habitable rooms in line with the proposed wind turbines and how these can have a significant impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of these properties especially if the orientation of windows face directly to the wind turbines. A number of properties to the north of the proposed wind turbines could be directly affected. However due to the orientation of the dwellings, land contours and existing landscaping the property closest to the turbines would have a minimal impact.
4.129 One of the main properties of concern is Cumbria County Council’s Lillyhall Highways Depot. Turbine No 1 would be located 130 m south west of the turbine no 1. There is a good potential that receptors of the building would be affected by noise and shadow flicker of the proposed turbine during working hours.
4.130 With regards to the impact on the nearest residential property Wythemoor Sough the proposed turbines would have very little impact due to its orientation and the existing landscaping and landscape contours. However when viewed from Wythmoor House and Whyclose the impact would be far greater as the living accommodation of these properties would be looking directly onto the proposed wind turbines. Thereby have the potential to have a significant impact on these properties.
Employment
4.131 The scheme would not generate permanent jobs but would where possible use local contractors for construction work.
Concerns of Representations
4.132 Four representations have been received with regards to the proposed development. Their concerns are with regards to landscape and visual impact,
Page 76 impact on biodiversity/ecology, noise, transport, scale and size of the turbines and contrary to local/national policy. These concerns have been significantly addressed within this report. There concerns are further addressed in turn -
4.133 Landscape and visual impact and cumulative landscape impact – Concern has been raised with regards to the proposal. The proposed scheme when considered on its own would have no significant impact on the landscape and it has clearly been identified that the existing landscape contours could accept the proposal scale of wind turbine development. However, it is acknowledged that the proposal if considered with the Potato Pot scheme would have a significant impact on the both the landscape and cumulative landscape impact and would have an adverse effect within West Cumbria.
4.134 Impact on biodiversity/ecology – The information submitted has been fully assessed by both Natural England and the County Council’s Ecologist and it is considered that all ecological issues have been addressed in the surveys submitted and the information has been prepared thoroughly.
4.135 Transport – The scheme would have a minor temporary impact on the highway network during construction. However once the turbines are commissioned the only vehicles required on site would be maintenance vehicles. The Highway Authority and Highways Agency have raised no objections the scheme as the highway network has had previous intensive activity in the past due to the former open cast coal mines in the area.
4.136 Scale and size of turbines – The size and scale of the turbines are a similar size to the one proposed at Potato Pot (100 m to blade tip). The scale and size of turbines are of concern due to there vertical nature and scale and massing within the landscape. When the scheme is looked at on its individual merits the scale and massing of the proposed turbines is less significant. However, when looked at with the Potato Pot scheme these impact on scale and massing would significantly alter the landscape and surrounding area. The proposed scheme would have a minor significance on the nearby residential properties.
National Grid Update
4.137 Another factor to be considered is the proposed development of the upgrading of the National Grid. The National Grid are currently undergoing a major consultation in regard to their proposal to significantly upgrade transmission infrastructure across Cumbria and North Lancashire (the North West Coast Connections Project). The National Grid completed Stage One of the consultation last year, and have stated that they intend to proceed with two ‘strategic options’. Both of these options would involve a route onshore which would traverse the area to the immediate east of Workington. Stakeholders have stressed a preference for following existing route corridors already used by the distribution network (132 kv lines). A number of 132 kv lines pass in close proximity to the Lillyhall, Potato Pot and Winscales sites. There is a potential for an intensification of energy transmission infrastructure which would contribute to visual clutter and potential confusion with wind turbines (pylons would have the effect emphasising the relative height of the turbines).
Page 77 Site Restoration
4.138 The site would be restore the site to mixed grassland/woodland, retaining the existing lagoons and creating a wetland area. The landform would be undulating with a mix of planting i.e. trees, shrubs and grassland that would blend into the surrounding area. The restoration scheme for this development and the development to extend the life of the existing Lillyhall Landfill Site (2/13/9007) are identical and therefore the restoration scheme of the site is acceptable.
Human Rights Act 1998
4.139 The proposal will have a limited impact on the visual, residential and environmental amenity of the area. Any impacts on the rights of local property owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) would be proportionate to the wider social and economic interests of the community.
Conclusion
4.139 The development is based up on the balanced judgment between the benefits of renewable energy production and the adverse impacts on the landscape and people in the surrounding locality.
4.140 The benefits of the development are simply stated but must not be underestimated. The important factor is that the development would supply a quantity of electricity from a renewable energy source, and would contribute to renewable energy targets. The Government has made it clear that there is a need to address the challenges of climate change. The development has the potential to be contribute positively to the challenges of meeting environmental, social and economic benefits that flow from the Government’s sustainable development strategy.
4.141 The development complies with Governments policy on achieving sustainable development as set out in National Planning Policy Framework which states “Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimizing vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.”
4.142 The landscape has been clearly identified as being capable of accepting a small scale wind turbine development. The proposed scheme would be acceptable as it would sit comfortably within the existing landscape as the area has a predominately industrial nature which has previously been disturbed by coal mining in the area.
4.143 The proposed turbines would be sited close to the A595 transport corridor. The transport corridor currently has a mixed landscape character comprising of industrial building, wind turbines and commercial uses.
Page 78 4.144 It is considered the impacts identified in relation to impacts on local amenity and transportation can be satisfactorily mitigated by appropriately worded conditions.
4.145 I therefore recommend that planning permission is granted subject to the implementation of appropriately worded conditions protecting residential and local amenities being attached to the granting of any planning permission.
Paul Feehily Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability
Contact
Mrs Jayne Petersen, Kendal, Tel: 01539 713549, Email: [email protected]
Background Papers
Planning Application File Reference No. 2/12/9011
Electoral Division Identification
Harrington, Clifton & Stainburn - Ms M Rae
\\ccc-prdc-fp03\kendal$\Filing\planning\applications\allerdale\2012\2129011_Lillyhall_Wind_Project\DCandRReport.doc
Page 79 Appendix 1 Ref No. 2/12/9011 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 18 October 2013
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010
Summary of Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission
1 This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, in the context of national and regional planning policy guidance and advice and the relevant development plan policies.
2 The key development plan policies taken into account by the County Council before granting permission were as follows:
National Planning Policy Framework
Core Planning Principles
Within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play a set of core land use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision taking. These 12 principles include :
Take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of out main urban areas, protecting the green belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it; support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate taking account of flood risk and coastal change and encourage the reuse of existing resources including conversion of existing buildings and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example by the development of renewable energy).
Paragraph 14 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development , which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.
Paragraph
10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
Para 97 – To increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities should recognise
Para 98 - When determining planning applications, local 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
Page 80 emissions; and - approve the application if it is impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable area.
Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies, adopted 2009
Policy CS 5 – Afteruse and Restoration
Restoration and aftercare schemes for mineral working and waste management sites should demonstrate that best practicable measures have been taken to secure full advantage of their potential to help deliver sustainability objectives relating to the environment and the economy of the County.
Policy DC 16 – Afteruse and Restoration
Proposals for minerals extraction or for temporary waste facilities such as landfill, should be accompanied by detailed proposals for restoration including proposals for appropriate afteruse, financial provision and long term management where necessary. Restoration and enhancement measures should maximise their contributions to national, regional and local biodiversity objectives and targets. In all cases restoration schemes must demonstrate that the land is stable and that the risk of future collapse of any mineworkings has been minimised.
Afteruse that enhance biodiversity and the environment, conserve spoil resources, conserve and enhance the historic environment, increase public access, minimise the impact of global warming and are appropriate for the landscape character of the area will be encouraged. The could include nature conservation, agriculture, leisure and recreation and woodland.
Where site accord with other policies an alternative or mixed afteruse that would support long term management, farm diversification, renewable energy schemes, tourism or employment land may be acceptable.
Allerdale Local Plan Saved Policies
Policy EN10: Contaminated/Derelict Land
Where development which is potentially contaminating or which could cause dereliction is considered acceptable, the Council will impose condition(s) on any approval to secure the restoration of the site to an acceptable standard should the approved use cease.
Page 81 Policy EN19: Landscape Protection
Proposals for development will be expected to give particular regard to the conservation and enhancement of the landscape of the Plan Area and retention of local distinctiveness in that landscape. Whenever possible, woodlands, grasslands, hedgerows, trees, copses, ponds, wetlands, watercourses, estate features, enclosure features, stone walls, and other built features of landscape importance should be protected and enhanced.
Policy EN 24 : Protecting Historic Parks and Gardens
The character and features of parks and gardens of historic or landscape interest will be protected and enhanced, particularly of those included in the National Register of Parks and Gardens. Within or adjacent to parks and gardens of historic or landscape interest:
(i) Development which would adversely affect their special character and appearance will not be permitted. (ii) The conservation, enhancement or restoration of their landscape and architectural elements will be encouraged. (iii) Development which would detract from their settings will not be permitted.
Policy EN 25 : Protecting the Open Countryside
In the open countryside not within any special landscape designations, outside development limits defined on the proposals map, development will be strictly controlled. Proposals for essential development, or for which there is a locational need, including those required for local infrastructure needs, may be acceptable subject to appropriate siting and design. Proposals which would cause unacceptable harm to the character of the landscape or landscape features will not be permitted unless an overriding need for the development can be demonstrated.
Policy EN 32 – Protecting Wildlife Protected by Law
Proposals for development or changes of use which would have an unacceptable adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, on animal and plant species protected by law, will not be permitted unless the need for the development on the relevant site clearly outweighs the presumption in favour of conservation. Where development is permitted, the Council will use conditions and/or legal agreements requiring developers to take steps to secure the protection of such animals and plants.
Policy EN 5 – Pollution Control
The Council, when assessing development proposals which are potentially polluting, will require such proposals to minimise potential environmental pollution, in consultation with the Environment Agency, where appropriate. Where, through conditions or other legal agreement, it is not possible to ensure acceptable standards, permission will be refused.
Page 82 Policy CO 18 – Setting of a Listed Building
Development proposals which affect the setting of a Listed Building will only be permitted where:-
(i) it does not have a seriously adverse effect on the character of the setting of the Listed Building; and (ii) the development is sympathetic in scale, character, materials and detailing.
Subject to other policies of this Local Plan.
Policy EM 17 – Consultation of Overhead Lines
In considering proposals for the replacement of existing and/or the installation of new overhead lines, the Local Planning Authority will not object to those where care has been taken to minimise impact on local communities, landscape, townscape and upon nature conservation interests. Proposals to underground lines will be supported except where damage to interests of acknowledged importance would result.
Allerdale Local Plan – Pre-submission Draft – May 2013
S19 Renewable Energy and Low Carbon Technologies
The Council will seek to promote and encourage the development of renewable and low carbon energy resources given the significant wider environmental, community and economic benefits. Proposals where impacts (either in isolation or cumulatively) are, or can be made acceptable will be permitted.
The Council will take a positive view where; a) Proposals (either in isolation or cumulatively); i) Do not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of local residents (such as air quality/emissions, noise, odour, water pollution); ii) Do not have significant adverse impact on the location, in relation to visual impact and impact on the character and sensitivity of the surrounding landscape; iii) Do not have a significant adverse effect on nature conservation features, biodiversity and geodiversity, including Natura 2000 sites, habitats and species; iv) Do not have unacceptably adverse impact on heritage assets and their settings; b) In the case of wind turbines, it can be demonstrated that the development would not result in a significant adverse effect (either in isolation or cumulatively) on protected bird species, including designated sites and migration routes; c) Appropriate operational requirements are addressed (including
Page 83 accessibility and suitability of road network, ability to connect to the grid, proximity of any relevant feedstock); d) Appropriate measures are included for the removal of structures and the restoration of sites, should sites become non-operational; e) Potential benefits to the local economy and the local community, including agriculture and other land based industries are considered. Within Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site and its buffer zone, and the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty only small scale renewable energy schemes, which preserve the special qualities of these designations and accord with the aims and objectives of their management plans will be acceptable.
Renewable energy proposals are expected to provide supporting evidence including landscape, visual and environmental assessments and to demonstrate that any negative impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated. Where mitigation is required to make impacts acceptable these will, where necessary be secured through Planning Obligations. Developers will be expected to work with local communities from an early stage and deliver benefits to the local area where the proposal is located.
3 In summary, the reasons for granting permission are that the County Council is of the opinion that the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan, there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made otherwise and with the planning conditions included in the notice of planning consent, any harm would reasonably by mitigated. Furthermore, any potential harm to interests of acknowledged importance is likely to be negligible and would be outweighed by the benefits of the development.
Page 84 Appendix 1 Ref No. 2/12/9011 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 18 October 2013
Time Limit for Implementation of Permission 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Approved Documents 2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved documents, hereinafter referred to as the approved scheme. The approved scheme shall comprise the following: a. The submitted Application Form – dated 7 September 2012 b. Environmental Statement – Volume 1 : Written Statement dated August 2012, contents : Introduction Approach to Environmental Impact Assessment Site selection and consideration of alternatives Project description Renewable energy and planning policy Landscape and visual impact assessment Noise Ecology Aviation and communications Archaeology and cultural heritage Traffic and transport Shadow flicker Water environment and ground investigations Ground conditions Benefits Summary of significant effects c. Environmental Statement – Volume 3 : Technical Appendices dated August 2012 d. Environmental Statement – Non-Technical Summary dated August 2012 e. Design and Access Statement dated August 2012 f. Planning Statement dated August 2012 g. Environmental Statement – Volume 2 : Figures and Visualisations dated August 2012 : Figure 1.1 – Site location Figure 1.2 – Site plan Figure 1.3 – Layout iterations Figure 1.4a – Indicative restoration without turbines Figure 1.4b – Indicative restoration with turbines Figure 1.5 – Turbine geometry – Enercon E70 Figure 1.6 – Typical access road construction Figure 1.7 – GRP kiosk Landscape figures Figure 6.1 – National landscape character
Page 85 Figure 6.2 – Local landscape character Figure 6.3 – Landscape designations Figure 6.4 – Local landscape context Figure 6.5 – Zone of theoretical visibility to blade tip : 30 km radius Figure 6.6 – Zone of theoretical visibility to hub height : 30 km radius Figure 6.7 – Zone of theoretical visibility to blade tip : 10 km radius Figure 6.8 – Zone of theoretical visibility to hub height : 20 km radius Figure 6.9 – Zone of theoretical visibility to blade tip with local landscape character Figure 6.10 - Zone of theoretical visibility to blade tip with local landscape Designation Figure 6.11 - Zone of theoretical visibility to blade tip with route receptors Figure 6.12 – Design iteration layouts Figure 6.13 – Design wireframe 1 : View west from Whythmoor Sough Figure 6.14 – Design wireframe 2 : View south from Gale House Figure 6.15 – Design wireframe 3 : View north from Whythemoore Head Farm Figure 6.16 – Design wireframe 4 : View north east of Distington Figure 6.17 – Design wireframe 5 : View north of Gilgarran Figure 6.18 – Design wireframe 6 : View south from A595 Winscales Visualisations (existing photo and wireframe and photomontage) Viewpoint 1 – View south from public footpath south east of Gale House Viewpoint 2 - View north from Gilgarran Viewpoint 3 – View south west from A595 near Winscales windfarm Viewpoint 4 – View west from minor road, Branthwaite Viewpoint 5 – View north east from embankment on A595 north west of Distington Viewpoint 6 – View north from minor road, Pica Viewpoint 7 – View south east from A596, Workington Viewpoint 8 – View south east from recreation ground, Ashfield Road, Workington Viewpoint 9 – View south from A66, Stainburn Viewpoint 10 – View west from minor road, Dean Viewpoint 11 – View south west from A66, Bridgefoot Viewpoint 12 – View south east from Cumbria Coastal Way, Workington Viewpoint 13 – View north west from Mockerkin How Viewpoint 14 – View north east from A595, Parton Viewpoint 15 – View south west from Camerton Road, Great Broughton Viewpoint 16 – View west from Fellbarrow Viewpoint 17 – View south west from Allerdale Ramble, Tallentire Viewpoint 18 – View north east from St Bee’s Heritage Coast Viewpoint 19 – View south west from A596, Prospect Viewpoint 20 – View west from Skiddaw Summit Viewpoint 21 – View south west from B5300, Solway Coast AONB Appendix 6.3 Residential visual amenity survey Cumulative Figures CLVIA 01 – Cumulative location plan CLVIA 02 – Landscape designations : Cumulative CLVIA 03 – National landscape character : Cumulative CLVIA 04 – Local landscape character : Cumulative
Page 86 CLVIA 05 – Route receptors with composite cumulative within visibility of Lillyhall CLVIA 06 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall and Winscales CLVIA 07 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall to Fairfield Farm CLVIA 08 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall to Lowca CLVIA 09 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall and Siddick and Oldside CLVIA 10 - – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall and Eastman Voridian CLVIA 11 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall and Wharrels Hill CLVIA 12– Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall to High Pow Farm CLVIA 13 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall to Hellrigg CLVIA 14 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall to Flimby CLVIA 15 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall to Tallentire CLVIA 16 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall to Westnewton CLVIA 17 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall to Robin Rigg CLVIA 18a – Cumulative Composite ZTV : All baseline wind farms within study area within visibility of Lillyhall CLVIA 18b - Cumulative Composite ZTV : All baseline wind farms within study area within visibility of Lillyhall CLVIA 19a - Cumulative Composite ZTV : All baseline wind farms within study area CLVIA 19b - Cumulative Composite ZTV : All baseline wind farms within study area CLVIA 20 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Proposed pairs Lillyhall and Harrington Park Farm CLVIA 21 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Proposed pairs Lillyhall and Kidburngill CLVIA 22 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Proposed pairs Lillyhall and Watch Hill CLVIA 23 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Proposed pairs Lillyhall and Green House Farm CLVIA 24 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Proposed pairs Lillyhall and Weddicar Rigg CLVIA 25 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Proposed pairs Lillyhall and Wythegill CLVIA 26 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Proposed pairs Lillyhall and Ewanrigg Hall Farm CLVIA 27 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Proposed pairs Lillyhall and High Thorny CLVIA 28 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Proposed pairs Lillyhall to Goose Green CLVIA 29a – Cumulative Composite ZTV : All wind farms within study
Page 87 area within visibility of Lillyhall CLVIA 29b - Cumulative Composite ZTV : All wind farms within study area within visibility of Lillyhall CLVIA 30a - Cumulative Composite ZTV : All wind farms within study area CLVIA 30b - Cumulative Composite ZTV : All wind farms within study area Cumulative Wireframes Cumulative Wireframe 1c : View from public footpath south east of Gale House Cumulative Wireframe 3c : View from A595 near Winscales wind farm Cumulative Wireframe 3d : View from A595 near Winscales wind farm Cumulative Wireframe 3e : View from A595 near Winscales wind farm Cumulative Wireframe 5c : View from embankment on A595 north west of Distington Cumulative Wireframe 5d : View from embankment on A595 north west of Distington Cumulative Wireframe 5e : View from embankment on A595 north west of Distington Cumulative Wireframe 5f : View from embankment on A595 north west of Distington Cumulative Wireframe 6c : View from minor road, Pica Cumulative Wireframe 6d : View from minor road, Pica Cumulative Wireframe 7c : View from A596, Workington Cumulative Wireframe 7d : View from A596, Workington Cumulative Wireframe 7e : View from A596, Workington Cumulative Wireframe 13c : View from Mockerkin How Cumulative Wireframe 13d : View from Mockerkin How Cumulative Wireframe 14c : View from A595, Parton Cumulative Wireframe 15c : View from Camerton Road, Great Broughton Cumulative Wireframe 15d : View from Camerton Road, Great Broughton Cumulative Wireframe 15e : View from Camerton Road, Great Broughton Cumulative Wireframe 17b : View from Allerdale Ramble, Tallentire Cumulative Wireframe 17c : View from Allerdale Ramble, Tallentire Cumulative Wireframe 17d : View from Allerdale Ramble, Tallentire Cumulative Wireframe 19b : View from A596, Prospect Cumulative Wireframe 19c : View from A596, Prospect Cumulative Wireframe 19d : View from A596, Prospect Cumulative Wireframe 20b : View from Skiddaw Summit Cumulative Wireframe 20c : View from Skiddaw Summit Cumulative Wireframe 21b : View from B5300, Solway Coast AONB Cumulative Wireframe 21c : View from B5300, Solway Coast AONB Cultural Heritage Figures Figure 10.1 – Sites of cultural heritage interest at Lillyhall Windfarm : Inner study area Figure 10.2 – Cultural heritage assets considered in the middle and outer Study areas Environmental Statement – LVIA Update 2013 dated January 2013 :
Page 88 Introduction Updated cumulative assessment Updated figures : Figure 6.1 – National landscape character Figure 6.2 – Local landscape character Figure 6.3 – Landscape designation Figure 6.4 – Local landscape context Figure 6.5 – Zone of theoretical visibility to blade tip : 30 km radius Figure 6.6 – Zone of theoretical visibility to hub height : 30 km radius Figure 6.7 – Zone of theoretical visibility to blade tip : 10 km radius Figure 6.8 – Zone of theoretical visibility to hub height : 10 km radius Figure 6.9 – Zone of theoretical visibility to blade tip with local landscape character Figure 6.10 – Zone of theoretical visibility to blade tip with landscape Designations Figure 6.11 – Zone of theoretical visibility to blade tip with route Receptors Figure CLVIA 01 – Cumulative location plan Figure CLVIA 02 – Landscape designations : Cumulative Figure CLVIA 03 – National landscape character : Cumulative Figure CLVIA 04 - Local landscape character : Cumulative Figure CLVIA 05 – Route receptors with composite cumulative within visibility of Lillyhall Figure CLVIA 06 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall and Winscales Figure CLVIA 07 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall and Fairfield Farm Figure CLVIA 08 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall and Lowca Figure CLVIA 09 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall and Siddick and Oldside Figure CLVIA 10 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pairs Lillyhall and Eastman Voridian Figure CLVIA 11 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pair Lillyhall and Wharrels Hill Figure CLVIA 12 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pair Lillyhall and High Pow Farm Figure CLVIA 13 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pair Lillyhall and Hellrigg Figure CLVIA 14 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pair Lillyhall and Flimby Figure CLVIA 15 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pair Lillyhall and Tallentire Figure CLVIA 16 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pair Lillyhall and Harrington Park Farm Figure CLVIA 17 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pair Lillyhall and Watch Hill Figure CLVIA 18 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pair Lillyhall and Green House Farm Figure CLVIA 19 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pair Lillyhall and Wythegill
Page 89 Figure CLVIA 20 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pair Lillyhall and Westnewton Figure CLVIA 21 – Cumulative ZTV to tip : Baseline pair Lillyhall and Robin Rigg Figure CLVIA 22a – Cumulative composite ZTV : All baseline wind farms within study area within visibility of Lillyhall Figure CLVIA 23a – Cumulative composite ZTV : All baseline wind farms within study area Figure CLVIA 23b – Cumulative composite ZTV : All baseline wind farms within study area Figure CLVIA 24 – Cumulative ZTV to tip :Proposed pairs Lillyhall and Potato Pot Figure CLVIA 25 – Cumulative ZTV to tip :Proposed pairs Lillyhall and Land off Charity Lane Figure CLVIA 26 – Cumulative ZTV to tip :Proposed pairs Lillyhall and Kidburngill Figure CLVIA 27 – Cumulative ZTV to tip :Proposed pairs Lillyhall and Middle Gill Farm Figure CLVIA 28 – Cumulative ZTV to tip :Proposed pairs Lillyhall and Weddicar Rigg Figure CLVIA 29 – Cumulative ZTV to tip :Proposed pairs Lillyhall and Ewanrigg Hall Farm Figure CLVIA 30 – Cumulative ZTV to tip :Proposed pairs Lillyhall and High Thorny Figure CLVIA 31 – Cumulative ZTV to tip :Proposed pairs Lillyhall and Goose Green Figure CLVIA 32 – Cumulative ZTV to tip :Proposed pairs Lillyhall and Lane Head Farm Figure CLVIA 33a – Cumulative Composite ZTV to tip : All wind farms within study area within visibility of Lillyhall Figure CLVIA 33b – Cumulative Composite ZTV to tip : All wind farms within study area within visibility of Lillyhall Figure CLVIA 34a – Cumulative Composite ZTV to tip : All wind farms within study area Figure CLVIA 34b – Cumulative Composite ZTV to tip : All wind farms within study area Updated CLVIA Visualisations (including 90ºCumulative wireframe) Viewpoint 1 – View from public footpath south east of Gale House Viewpoint 3 – View from A595 near Winscales windfarm Viewpoint 5 – View from embankment on A595 north west of Distington Viewpoint 6 – View from minor road, Pica Viewpoint 7 – View from A596, Workington Viewpoint 13 – View north west from Mockerkin How Viewpoint 14 – View north east from A595, Parton Viewpoint 15 – View from Camerton Road, Great Broughton Viewpoint 17 – View from Allerdale Ramble, Tallentire Viewpoint 19 – View from A596, Prospect Viewpoint 20 – View from Skiddaw Summit Viewpoint 21 – View from B5300, Solway Coast AONB Updated LVIA Visualisations (including photo, wireframe and
Page 90 photomontage) Viewpoint 5 – View north east from embankment on A595 North West of Distington Viewpoint 12 – View south east from Cumbria Coastal Way, Workington Viewpoint 13 – View north east from Mockerkin How Viewpoint 14 – View north east from A595, Parton
Lillyhall Wind Energy Project – Supplementary CLVIA dated July 2013, contents : Introduction Methodology Wind farm landscape Viewpoint Assessment Cumulative landscape effects Cumulative visual effects Residential visual amenity Route assessment National grid upgrade Conclusion Plans (including wireframes) : Supplementary CLVIA viewpoints Supplementary viewpoint 1a – Minor road between Branthwaite and Lillyhall Supplementary viewpoint 1b – Minor road between Branthwaite and Lillyhall Supplementary viewpoint 1 – Minor road between Branthwaite and Lillyhall Supplementary viewpoint 2 – View from Gilgarran Supplementary viewpoint 2b – View from Gilgarran Supplementary viewpoint 3 – Minor road Branthwaite Supplementary viewpoint 3 – Minor road Branthwaite Supplementary viewpoint 3 – Minor road Branthwaite Supplementary viewpoint 4 – View from Barfs Road, Distington Supplementary viewpoint 4 – View from Barfs Road, Distington Supplementary viewpoint 4 – View from Barfs Road, Distington Supplementary viewpoint 4 – View from Barfs Road, Distington Supplementary viewpoint 5 – View from High Park Supplementary viewpoint 5 – View from High Park Supplementary viewpoint 5 – View from High Park Supplementary viewpoint 5 – View from High Park Supplementary viewpoint 6 – View from road near Dean County Primary School Supplementary viewpoint 6 – View from road near Dean County Primary School Supplementary viewpoint 6 – View from road near Dean County Primary School Supplementary viewpoint 7 – View from junction of minor road and footpath access to Calva Hall Supplementary viewpoint 7 – View from junction of minor road and
Page 91 footpath access to Calva Hall h. The details or schemes approved in relation to conditions attached to this permission. i. This Decision Notice Reason: To ensure the development is carried out to an approved appropriate standard and to avoid confusion as to what comprises the approved scheme.
3 The developer shall notify the Local Planning Authority in writing of the date of the commissioning of the wind farm (all four turbines commissioned) or the expiry of a period of two years from the commissioning of the first turbine, whichever is the sooner. The permitted operational period for the wind turbines hereby approved shall be 25 years from this date.
Reason : To prevent development remaining beyond its operational life, to ensure appropriate mitigation thereafter.
4 Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the decommissioning of the turbines shall be submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The decommissioning process shall include the removal of all wind turbines, ancillary equipment and buildings from the site and the restoration of the land. The scheme shall make provision for the removal of all above ground components plus 1 metre of the turbine base below ground level. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with this provision.
Reason : To prevent development remaining beyond its operational life, to ensure appropriate mitigation thereafter.
5 The wind turbines hereby permitted shall be located in the positions shown on the approved plans or within a tolerance of 20 m from the base of the approved tower positions, subject to :
i. Turbine T1 being located no closer to Cumbria County Council’s Highway Depot shown on the plans
Details of any such variation from the approved positions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the erection of any of the turbines.
Reason : To ensure there is no visual intrusion on users of the office accommodation.
6 Notwithstanding the planning application dated 7 September 2012 or information contained within the accompanying environmental information, no development shall take place until details of :
- the siting, height, design and external appearance of the any power performance mast(s) - blade measurements - power rating
Page 92 - tonal assessment - the turbines shall not exceed 64 m in height to hub with blades not exceeding 35.5 m
have been submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason : To ensure adequate controls and flexibility are available.
7 The control building shall be constructed in accordance with Figure 1.7 – GRP kiosk.
Reason : To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.
8 All of the wind turbine blades shall rotate in the same direction.
Reason : To ensure consistency of blade direction.
9 No lights shall be attached to the wind turbines other than those that might be required by law.
Reason : To avoid unnecessary adverse impact upon the wider unlit open countryside.
10 If any wind turbine hereby permitted fails to produce electricity for supply to the electricity grid for a continuous period of 12 months, it and all of its related above ground elements shall be removed from the site within the ensuing period of not more than six months or as may otherwise be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. This shall be in accordance with a scheme to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall make provision for the removal of all above ground components plus 1 metre of the turbine bases below ground level and the land shall be returned to agricultural use. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with its provisions.
Reason : To prevent development remaining beyond its operational life, to ensure appropriate mitigation thereafter.
11 Prior to the commencement of any works, a Construction Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include :
- construction vehicle movements - operation and delivery hours - construction vehicle routes - car parking for contractors - mitigation of construction impacts including visual, noise and light pollution - site lighting - staff facilities and drainage - construction signage
Page 93 - dust management - surface water drainage - fuel oil and chemical storage - the prevention of mud and debris onto Branthwaite/Lillyhall road - location of contractor’s compound - procedure for dealing with complaints dealing with demolition and construction - noise and dust mitigation during demolition/construction phase - dust management (dust suppression and cleaning of roads/public highway) - disposal of surplus material - sheeting of HGV’s - site security
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the Construction Method Statement.
The reinstatement of the site shall take place within 12 months of the development becoming operational, unless otherwise previously agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. This shall include the removal of all buildings, compounds and equipment associated with the construction period.
Reason : To ensure that any adverse impact arising from the construction development are mitigated as far as reasonably possible.
12 Prior to the commencement of any works, a Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include :
- construction of site access and the creation, positioning and maintenance of associated visibility splays - access gates shall be hung to open away from the public highway no less than 10 m from the carriageway edge and shall incorporate visibility splays - proposed accommodation works and where necessary a programme for their subsequent removal and the reinstatement of street furniture and verges, where required - the pre-construction road condition established by a detailed survey for accommodation works within the highway boundary - details of road improvement, construction specification, strengthening, maintenance and repair commitments - details of proposed crossing of highway verge - retained areas for vehicle parking, manoeuvring, loading and unloading for their specific purpose - the surfacing of the access road from the public highway into the site for a minimum of 25 m - construction vehicle routing - the management of junctions to and crossing of the public highway and other public rights of way - the schedule and timing of movements, details of escorts for abnormal loads, temporary warning signs and banksman/escort details
Page 94 The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the Construction Method Statement.
Reason : To ensure that any adverse impact arising from the construction traffic management are mitigated as far as reasonably possible.
13 Day time noise limits (7 am to 11 pm) the LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 35 dB(A) when assessed and measured 3.5 m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive uses (in existence at the date of this permission) or 5dB above the quiet day time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12 m/s, whichever is the greater. When assessed from Whythemoor Sough, Whythemoor House, Whyclose, Cumbria County Council Highway Depot and Whythemoor Head Farm. Night time noise limits (11 pm to 7 am) the LA90 (10 minutes) specific noise level shall not exceed 43 dB(A) when assessed and measured 3.5 m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive use (in existence at the date of this permission) or 5dB above the quiet day time LA90 background noise level at wind speeds not exceeding 12 m/s, whichever is the greater. When assessed from Whythemoor Sough, Whythemoor House, Whyclose and Whythemoor Head Farm.
Reason : In order to protect the residential amenities of nearby residents.
14 In the event of a complaint being received in writing by the Local Planning Authority alleging noise nuisance at a residential property or properties due to the wind turbines, the wind turbine operator shall at its expense employ an independent consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to measure and assess the level of noise emissions from the wind turbine at the location of the complainants property. The results of the independent consultant’s assessment shall be provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority within three months of the date of notification of the complaint. If a breach of Condition 13 was confirmed in the assessment the operation of the turbine will cease until the Local Planning Authority is satisfied the turbine can operate within the noise limits specified in condition 13. The operator of the development shall be under no obligation to follow the procedure set out in this condition where the complaint relates to a residential property more than 3 kilometres from the wind turbine generator.
Reason : In order to protect the residential amenities of nearby residents.
15 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a baseline television and broadband reception study in the area to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority shall be undertaken by a qualified television engineer and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. A scheme of works necessary to mitigate any adverse effects to domestic television and radio broadband signals in the agreed area caused by the development shall also be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any claim by any person for domestic television picture loss/interference or radio broadband signal loss/interference at their household within 12 months of the final commissioning of the wind turbines, shall be investigated by a qualified television engineer and the results submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Should any impairment to the television or broadband reception be determined by the qualified engineer
Page 95 as attributable to the wind turbines on the basis of the baseline reception study, such impairment shall be mitigated in accordance with the mitigation scheme within 3 months of results of the investigation being submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason : To ensure any adverse effects on television/broadband reception is appropriately addressed.
16 Prior to commencement of development no development shall take place until a Pollution Prevention and Management Plan covering protection of watercourses, soils, storage of chemicals and handling of waste has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason : To ensure appropriate controls exist over potential pollutants.
17 Prior to the commencement of development an intrusive site investigation shall be undertaken to establish the exact situation with regards to coal mining legacy issues on site. Should the site investigation show the need for remedial works to treat any areas of shallow mine workings these finding and/or other mitigation measure to ensure safety and stability of the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
Reasons : To ensure appropriate controls exist over potential impact from coal mining.
17 Commencing with the first commercial generation of electricity from the wind farm the wind farm operator shall continuously log wind speed and wind direction data for each wind turbine and provide it to the Local Planning Authority on its request. The logged data shall be retained for a period of not less than 12 months.
Reason : To provide an appropriate baseline for assessing noise emissions data.
18 Prior to the commissioning of the turbines hereby approved a shadow flicker mitigation strategy shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and which shall include the installation of automatic turbine shut down times. The turbines shall thereafter be operated in accordance with the shadow flicker mitigation strategy.
Reason : To address shadow flicker which requires mitigation to ensure any adverse impact on any properties is appropriately addressed.
19 Should contamination be found during construction which poses an unacceptable risk to health or the environment, work shall cease immediately and, no further development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include :
description of the contamination and its likely source an appraisal of available remedial options proposed preferred option(s) proposed remediation objectives
Page 96 remediation criteria provision of a verification report when remedial works are complete .
The scheme shall ensure that the site would not be considered contaminated land as defined in Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
When approved the Remediation Scheme shall be implemented full.
Reason : To ensure that the risk of on site contamination is kept to a minimum.
20 No clearance of vegetation shall take place within the bird breeding season i.e. 1 March - 31 August inclusive unless measures have previously been taken to exclude nesting birds.
Reason: To prevent harm to breeding birds.
21 Prior to the commencement of development a scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority showing enhancements to biodiversity interests within the site. The details shall include bat and bird/owl boxes around the site.
Reason : in the interest of enhancing biodiversity issues around the site.
22 No development shall take place until a Mitigation Report (including site surveys) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Mitigation Report shall be produced by the Joint Radio Company Ltd in consultation with the Electricity North West (ENW) and shall set out any relevant mitigation measures. The report shall include the arrangements for the implementation of the scheme. The development shall not be brought into use until the scheme has been implemented in accordance with the approved Mitigation Report.
Reason : To ensure that the utility network is not compromised by the development.
Page 97 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 98 Agenda Item 7c DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 18 October 2013 A Report to the Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability ______
Application No: 3/13/9008 District: Eden
Applicant: United Utilities Plc Parish: Catterlen Clearwater 4 Lingley Green Avenue Received: 14 August 2013 Warrington ______
PROPOSAL Erection of a pumping station with associated access track with hammerhead turning area and improved permanent highway access (including hedge removal). Land to north of Ashleigh, Catterlen, Penrith, Cumbria ______
PagePage 991 1.0 RECOMMENDATION 1.1 That planning permission is GRANTED for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 It is proposed to construct a new Wastewater Pumping Station (WwPS) compound. The compound would have a footprint of approximately 793m 2 and would consist of:
i) A Control Kiosk-building measuring L 2.55m x W 0.7m x H 1.73m (including plinth) formed from Glass-Reinforced Plastic (GRP) with a dark recessive green colour finish. N.B. This was initially proposed to be L 5.9m x W 2.9m x H 2.9m, however following negotiations United Utilities were able to authorise a non-standard design so as to reduce the footprint and height of this structure
ii) A Dosing Kiosk measuring L 1.8m x W 1.8 x H 1.6m (including plinth). An underground pumping station covered with a concrete hardstanding. A slim metal vent stack (also referred to as a pressure relief column) would be associated with this and would measure 0.6m in height above ground.
iii) A new 4m wide access track incorporating a hammerhead turning area. The track would be formed from compacted MOT sub-base stone finished with a grass seed and soil mix.
iv) An existing field access will be modified to form an enlarged and set-back permanent site access. A concrete bellmouth access will be formed (for durability and safe access/egress) and new agricultural gate and stock- proof fencing provided. This work would involve the removal of approximately 6m of hedgerow.
v) Stockproof wooden post rail fencing will be erected along the eastern boundary along with new hedgerow and two oak trees/saplings of 3.5m to 4m in height. Additional hedgerow would also be provided on the western edge of the site either side of the new site access gate and partially along Henley Sike. A further tree (field maple) would also be planted on this side just within the entrance to the site by Henley Sike.
vi) A 1.8m high “hit-and-miss” screening fence formed from verticle slats of dark brown pressure treated softwood would be installed to wrap around the rears and sides of the kiosks. This fencing would run to 4m in length.
vii) Creation of a new replacement agriculutral field access adjacent to 4 Wood Close. This would involve the removal of approximately 5m of hedgerow and installation of a
2.2 This WwPS is required in association with the provision of a new sewage network for Catterlen and Laithes villages. United Utilities are required by the Environment Agency to provide first time sewerage to these villages to resolve environmental and amenity problems arising from their reliance on poorly- performing private septic tanks which are causing pollution to Henley Sike which breaches the Water Resources Act 1991. The WwPS will lift flows west to the proposed Wastewater Treatment Works (planning application 3/13/9009) at Laithes.
PagePage 100 2 3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 Eden District Council Planning have no comment.
3.2 Eden District Council Environmental Health have no objections to the proposal.
3.3 Catterlen Parish Council comment that the kiosk structures and their materials are not appropriate for the village and state that the kiosks should be enclosed in a stone-faced building with a slate pitched roof as used for a similar kiosk at Newton Reigny. They state:
“The location of the proposed "Kiosk" is within an established Rural Village settlement, where appropriate planning standards should be upheld. A Glass reinforced plastic box, which might be eventually screened by hedge is not acceptable. Therefore we submit a strong recommendation that only local vernacular building materials be used in construction of the proposed pump house structure”
3.4 Following the Committee Site Visit and notification of the reduced WwPS kiosk size the Parish Council issued a further letter which stated:
“… we believe that as per our original comments that whatever structure they build or place it should be made of a more appropriate building material in this location sandstone or similar would be most appropriate.
Although screening may well help the site is extremely wet. (On the date of your visit it was after the longest period of dry weather we have had for some years) There will need to be considerable infill for any pumping station to be built which will raise the structure above or on a level with the road. It is not possible to screen the site for persons travelling East through the village. The site at Newton Rigg is in no way similar it does not have residential properties adjacent to it. The better comparison is the site at Newton Reigny which has been constructed recently in the same parish.
The facility will be in place for many years to come and clearly a structure akin to a shipping container is totally unsuitable for a rural environment. I doubt planning would allow a resident to put a similar structure in the grounds of their own dwelling. Whilst in the short term it may cause further expense and a short time delay in the long term it is right and indeed our duty to ensure that the correct materials are used in this project. /…”
3.5 This letter also states that the road through Catterlen is not on a winter gritting scheme and suggested that to offset the danger of increased traffic during the construction phase that an agreement should be reached for the road to be treated when dictated by weather conditions.
3.6 The Environment Agency have no comments.
3.7 Natural England have no objections regarding statutory nature conservation sites or protected species.
3.8 The Highway Authority have no objections. They are satisfied with the submitted details and request the imposition of conditions regarding access detail and provision. Whilst Highways can envision some local traffic from the east may use the U3030/U3031 through Catterlen, they do not feel this is significant enough to justify it becoming a winter gritting route.
PagePage 1013 3.9 The Historic Environment Record Officer considers it likely that medieval remains could survive on the site and that they would be disturbed by the proposed development. Consequently he recommends a condition be included in any planning consent requiring a programme of archaeological recording to be undertaken by the applicant prior to the commencement of development.
3.10 Mr AP Richardson is the local county council member for the electoral division which this application falls within ( Greystoke & Hesket ). He called in this application for a site visit and a committee decision at the Special Development Control and Regulation Committee meeting held on Tuesday 24 September 2013. A Committee site visit was subsequently held on Wednesday 2 October 2013.
3.11 Two representations have been received from residents of properties opposite the proposed pumping station site - one representation makes a strong objection while the other raises concerns and provides comments.
3.12 The objection is based on grounds of the proposals visual and landscape impact, increased noise levels and potential impacts on highway condition and traffic flow.
3.13 The other representation raises concerns about the possibility of further future hedge removal (based on the red-line application area encompassing the entirety of the hedgerow); comments that native species and 4-5 trees should be provided within the landscaping scheme; and raises issue with the proposed routing of the proposed sewer pipeline in relation to their property.
4.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT Scheme Overview
4.1 The WwPS is a vital part of the first time sewage scheme for Catterlen and Laithes that will deliver substantial environmental benefits by providing scope to remove properties from these villages from reliance on septic tanks, therefore improving water quality of the River Petteril and Henley Sike.
Policy Context
4.2 The key relevant Development Plan Policy against which this application must be considered is Policy DC4(f) of the Cumbria Minerals & Waste Development Framework’s [CMWDF] Generic Development Control Policies; which states that waste water treatment facilities will be permitted in appropriate locations if proposals have minimised any adverse environmental impacts. The principle potential adverse impact of the proposed WwPS is considered to be landscape and visual (Policy DC12).
Site Location and Context
4.3 Catterlen is a small linear settlement which has grown as a result of ribbon development; however it remains distinctive in form as it comprises groups of buildings interspersed by long stretches of unbuilt frontage. The proposed WwPS would be located in the western corner of a grade 3 agricultural field that currently comprises improved pastoral grassland. The field occupies a low lying position of unbuilt frontage within the middle of Catterlen village. It is bounded to the south by a mature hedgerow (which measures approximately 2m in height) and is accessed from the adjacent main road which runs parallel to this.
PagePage 102 4 A number of residential dwellings line the opposite side of the public highway. Amongst these ‘Ashleigh’ and ‘Thomas Lodge’ are the nearest properties to the site, lying approximately 25m south of the proposed WwPS compound.
4.4 Catterlen Wood, which is classified as Protected Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland, lies approximately 30m to the North of the proposed development site. A small watercourse (Henley Sike) runs along the north-western edge of the site and it was evident from the site visit that pollution appears to be present within this. Agricultural land lies immediately to the east and west though properties are located beyond these with ‘4 Wood Close’ approximately 70m northwest of the site ( N.B. this property currently has no views of the proposed site area due to the belt of mature coniferous trees present along its south- western perimeter/boundary ) and ‘Dunrovin’ 100m to the east.
4.5 The location for the WwPS has been determined by a combination of reasons embracing engineering (the site is at one of the lowest points in the village), safe highway access, hedgerow preservation, and land availability. The site has been positioned so as to be adjacent to the field boundary and the scheme designed so as limit/reduce its visual impact. The location of the proposed development is deemed acceptable however the proposed built form of the facility has been contested by the Parish Council.
Landscape & Visual Impact
4.6 The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance categorises this area as landscape subtype 6 ‘Intermediate Farmland’. The key characteristics of this type that are evident within Catterlen are the presence of extensive areas of improved grazing pasture with regular patterns of hedges and wooded valleys and its nature as a small nucleated planned village displaying topographical and archaeological evidence of its’ medieval origins. The access gates and grass seeded internal track would be in keeping with the agricultural character whilst the landscaping scheme would help reinforce the regular pattern of hedges.
4.7 The proposed pumping station site is small and has been considerately layed- out with the kiosks running parallel to the hedge. It is also noted that the ground levels within the field are lower than that on the highway and will largely remain unchanged post-construction, with the exception of a slight cutting in to the field under the kiosk to make levels uniform across the site, and to further reduce the height of the kiosks. This measure, along with the reduced size of the WwPS kiosk, will ensure that the kiosks will not be visible from the immediately adjacent highway and properties opposite to the south as they will be effectively screened from view by the existing 2m high hedgerow. Nor will they be visible from the east due to the proposed landscaping planting and existing hedgerow.
4.8 Consequently the only real views into the site would be from the certain sections of road and a small number of properties which are situated on the hill at the western side of the village. The proposed landscaping scheme has evolved during the application process to incorporate further hedgerow and to provide an additional field maple tree on its western side which it is considered will help break-up the visibility of the site from the hill. The proposed wooden screen fencing will help break-up the massing and colour of the kiosks and soften their external appearance. As such it is considered the site would be discrete and the proposal would be well blended into the landscape so as to avoid significant adverse impact.
PagePage 1035 4.9 Whilst sympathetic to the viewpoint of the Parish Council regarding the use of local sandstone materials to form a building to shield the above ground kiosk structures, in this instance, I am of the view that a building would be more visible/conspicuous making the development more prominent and detracting from the open aspect of this area of unbuilt frontage.
Other Planning Considerations
Archaeology
4.10 In accord with the Historic Environment Record Officer’s response, it is proposed to include a condition requiring an archaeological scheme and watching brief.
Ecology
4.11 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report (dated June 2013) supplied is considered adequate in terms of timing, methodology, scope and its conclusions. The only high risk of impact at this site relates to the potential for disturbance of nesting bird habitat caused by hedgerow removal. Consequently it is proposed to include a condition that hedgerow removal can only take place outside the bird breeding season. To further ensure hedgerow is not disturbed the kiosks have been set back 2m from the hedgerow to protect its root zones during installation of the kiosk slabs and to allow for maintenance room for pruning. Therefore it is considered that this proposal has little potential to affect/harm any protected species. Natural England and the County Ecologist have no objections to the proposal.
4.12 This hedgerow is not considered to be of high importance under the Hedgerow Regulations (1997) due to the low diversity of woody species and lack of associated features. Furthermore, the proposed mitigation planting will result in a net increase in hedgerow habitat.
Odour
4.13 All pre-treatment flows are below-ground and covered. Mechanisms for preventing and neutralising potential odours are evident within the scheme (i.e. provision of a dosing kiosk to prevent the risk of septicity). Consequently United Utilities affirm that the site will not generate any significant levels of odour likely to offend passers-by or occupants of the nearest properties.
Noise
4.14 United Utilities state that the proposed equipment would not be audible to passers-by / nearby properties.
Access and Traffic
4.15 The visibility splays provided are considered acceptable by highways. The site would only generate an average of two maintenance visits per-month by United Utilities operatives.
4.16 United Utilities have confirmed that the temporary construction compound would only be accessed through the new WwPS access. Conditions are proposed to ensure the timely delivery of the access (prior to the commencement of development) and protect the condition of the highway.
PagePage 104 6 Highways do not consider constructiojn traffic generated by this scheme to be significant enough to justify the road through Catterlen becoming a winter gritting route.
Points raised by the Representees
4.17 Further information has been provided to the objectors regarding the applicant’s landscaping scheme, traffic generation at the site and noise as set out above. No further communication has been received from them regarding their position in light of this, so there objection is considered to stand. The above planning analysis sets out that the issues raised are considered to have negligible impact upon their amenity.
4.18 The provision of the proposed underground pipeline is to be undertaken by United Utilities under their extensive permitted development rights in their role as a statutory utility undertaker. The routing and extent of the scheme is not a material planning consideration in the consideration of this proposal at this location. Similarly, the pipeline’s routing is a private/civil matter for United Utilities to agree with landowners.
Human Rights Act 1998
4.19 The proposal will have a limited impact on the visual, residential and environmental amenities in the area. Any impacts on the rights of local property owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) are minimal and proportionate to the wider social and economic interests of the community.
Conclusion
4.20 The application is supported by policy and would help address the pollution of Henley Sike which is causing environmental and amenity problems in the locality. The proposal’s location is acceptable and the scheme’s sensitive design and landscaping are considered to have ensured that the development will have a negligible landscape and visual impact. Potential issues concerning Ecology and Archaeology can be adequately controlled by condition. I therefore recommend that the application is granted subject to conditions.
Mr Edward Page Planning Officer
Tel: 01539 713424, Email: [email protected]
Electoral Division Identification Greystoke & Hesket ED - Mr AP Richardson
Background Papers Planning Application File Reference No. 3/13/9009 \\ccc-prdc-fp03\kendal$\Filing\planning\applications\eden\2013\3139008_Catterlen_WwPS_(PP-02698870)
PagePage 1057 Appendix 1 Ref No. 3/13/9008 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 18 October 2013
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010
Summary of Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission
1 This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, the relevant development plan policies, and in the context of national planning policy framework.
2 The key development plan policies taken into account by the County Council before granting permission were as follows:
CUMBRIA MINERALS & WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK [CMWDF]
Generic Development Control Policies 2009-2020 (Adopted April 2009 ) Policy DC 4 - Criteria for Waste Management Facilities … f. Waste water treatment facilities will be permitted in appropriate locations if proposals have minimised any adverse environmental impacts, / …
Policy DC 11 – Historic Environment Proposals for waste management developments that would adversely affect a nationally important archaeological site monument or historic asset, whether scheduled or not, or its setting, will not be permitted unless the site and setting can be preserved in situ. Proposals for mineral developments that would adversely affect a nationally important archaeological site monument or historic asset, whether scheduled or not, or its setting, will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding reason of national importance for the development to proceed, or the site and setting can be preserved in situ. Proposals that: a. fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Conservation Areas; or b. damage, obscure or remove important archaeological sites or other historic features; or c. are detrimental to the character or setting of a listed building; will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that the need for and benefits of the development decisively outweigh these interests. Proposals should be accompanied by an assessment of any impacts on the historic environment, including an appropriate level of field investigation if necessary.
Policy DC 12 - Landscape Proposals for development should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria's landscapes and should: a. avoid significant adverse impacts on the natural and historic landscape,
PagePage 106 8 b. use Landscape Character Assessment to assess the capacity of landscapes to accept development, to inform the appropriate scale and character of such development, and guide restoration where development is permitted, c. in appropriate cases use the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment to assess and integrate these issues into the development process, d. ensure that development proposals consider the effects on: locally distinctive natural or built features; scale in relation to landscape features; public access and community value of the landscape; historic patterns and attributes; and openness, remoteness and tranquility, e. ensure high quality design of modern waste facilities to minimise their impact on the landscape, or views from sensitive areas, and to contribute to the built environment, f. direct minerals and waste developments to less sensitive locations, wherever this is possible, and ensure that sensitive siting and high quality design prevent significant adverse impacts on the principal local characteristics of the landscape including views from, and the setting of, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Heritage Coast or National Parks.
3 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) is also a material consideration, and has been taken into account in this report with reference to: Paragraph 14 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development , which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. … For decision-taking this means: " approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and
4 In summary, the reasons for granting permission are that the County Council is of the opinion that the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan, there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made otherwise and with the planning conditions included in the notice of planning consent, any harm would reasonably be mitigated. Furthermore, any potential harm to interests of acknowledged importance is likely to be negligible and would be outweighed by the benefits of the development.
PagePage 1079 Appendix 2 Ref No. 3/13/9008 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 18 October 2013
Conditions
Time Limit for Implementation of Permission
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Approved Documents
2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved documents, hereinafter referred to as the approved scheme. The approved scheme shall comprise the following:
a. The submitted Application Form – dated 14 August 2013 b. Design and Access Statement RevB. – dated 9 October 2013 c. Supporting Statement RevB. – dated 9 October 2013 d. Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report Rev2 – dated July 2013- Catterlen and Laithes e. Annex Report- Impact Assessment for Great Crested Newts – dated August 2013 f. Arboricultual Report - dated 15 July 2013 (JCA Ref 11168AB) g. Plans numbered and named: i) P371_80029163_00_97_20011-RevA - Site Plan ii) P371_80029163_00_97_20012-RevA - Kiosk & Dosing Unit Details iii) P371_80029163_00_97_20013-RevB – Elevations iv) Drwg Ref. P371_80029163_00_97_9401-RevC - Landscaping Proposals Plan h. The details or schemes approved in relation to conditions attached to this permission. i. This Decision Notice
Reason: To avoid confusion as to what comprises the approved scheme and ensure the development is carried out to an approved appropriate standard.
Archaeology
3. Prior to the commencement of development a written scheme of archaeological investigation must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the scheme shall be implemented in full with an archaeological watching brief being undertaken by a qualified archaeologist. Within two months of the completion of the development, 3 copies of the archaeological report/findings shall be furnished to the Local Planning Authority
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 investigation and recording of such remains in accordance with Policy DC 11 (Historic Environment) of the Cumbria Minerals & Waste Development Framework’s [CMWDF] Generic Development Control Policies 2009-2020.
PagePage 108 10 Hedgerow Removal
4. No hedgerow or tree removal, or related site clearance, shall take place during the bird nesting season (i.e. between the 1st March and 31st August inclusive in any year).
Reason: To ensure appropriate protection for breeding birds under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Vehicular Access Detail and Delivery
5. Prior to the commencement of development plans showing the construction detail, drainage measures and levels of the vehicular access areas bounded by the carriageway edge and the boundary gates for the pumping station site and new field access shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the scheme shall be implemented in full.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
6. Prior to the commencement of any other aspects of the development, the new field access and modified site access for the pumping station site along with its access track and turning area shall be constructed. Once complete the accesses shall be retained capable of use thereafter and shall not be altered.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety as the carrying out of development without the provision of these facilities is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users. Retention of the facilities ensures an appropriate standard of parking and access for as long as the use continues.
7. The temporary construction compound shall only be accessed via the new Wastewater Pumping Station site access labeled “new site entrance” on Plan P371_80029163_00_97_20011-RevA - Site Plan.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety so as to allow construction traffic to safely park and turn clear of the highway and to protect the existing hedgerow.
Highway Condition
8. Measures shall be put in place for the duration of the construction to ensure that no mud or other debris from the site is tracked on to the public highway.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of highway/road users.
PagePage 11109 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 110 Agenda Item 7d DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 18 October 2013 A Report to the Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability ______
Application No: 3/13/9009 District: Eden
Applicant: United Utilities Plc Parish: Skelton Clearwater 4 Lingley Green Avenue Received: 14 August 2013 Warrington ______
PROPOSAL Construction of a wastewater treatment works (including removal of trees and hedgerow) Land to South East of Townend Cottage, Laithes, Penrith ______
PagePage 1111 1.0 RECOMMENDATION 1.1 That planning permission is Granted for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 It is proposed to construct a small new Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) site which would occupy an area of 1,932m 2 (0.19ha). The works would comprise of the following above ground elements:
i) A covered Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) tank. This unit provides the primary treatment process for the works. It houses a series of rotating discs with very high surface areas that digestive bugs grow on. These discs are arranged on an axle which rotates and as the wastewater flows through the bugs digest and break down the organic content of the sewage. The tank, which would have a rectangular footprint measuring 10m x 4m, would be mostly below ground, however its cover dome would be above ground level and would extend to a maximum of 1.5m above the existing ground level at its apex. The cover dome would be made out of Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) coloured Dark Green. ii) A Control Kiosk measuring 7.3m (L) x 2.9m (W) x 2.9m (H - including plinth) formed from GRP and coated a dark green colour. iii) A Welfare Facility Unit measuring 4m (L) x 2m (W) and 2.9m (H) - including plinth. This would also be formed from dark green coloured GRP and would have a window looking into the site. iv) A new permanent tarmacked access bellmouth off the U3029 road between Laithes Bridge and Catterlen. The access would be located approximately 25m back from the junction of the U3029 (Laithes to Catterlen road) with the C3010 Skelton Road (near Laithes Bridge). v) A concrete internal access road with hammerhead turning area and further areas of concrete hard standing – amounting to a total hardstanding area of approximately 900m 2. vi) A 1.8m high access gate and perimeter fence comprising of chain link security fencing coloured dark green.
2.2 To facilitate the development as designed 2no. trees and 20m of existing hedgerow will need to be removed. Replacement hedgerow planting would be provided to mitigate this loss and help screen the development. The hedgerow planting would be outside the fencing on the eastern elevation but within the fenced area on its other elevations.
2.3 It is anticipated that this facility would be maintained by two service visits per month. It is designed to operate remotely and when servicing is required, it would typically be attended by operatives in a light commercial vehicle (e.g. Transit van, or similar). In the unlikely event of a malfunction of the wastewater treatment works, it may be necessary for the site to be visited by a tanker to empty the wet well to facilitate repairs to equipment therein.
2.4 The WwTW is required in association with a new sewage network for Laithes and Catterlen. United Utilities are required by the Environment Agency to provide first time sewerage to these villages to resolve environmental and amenity problems
PagePage 112 2 arising from their reliance on poorly-performing private septic tanks. The WwTW will discharge cleaned, final effluent into the River Petteril via an outfall (planning application 3/13/9010).
3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 Eden District Council’s Planning Services have no comments.
3.2 Eden District Council’s Environmental Health Protection team have no objections.
3.3 Skelton Parish Council support the principle of the installation and its position within Laithes on the basis that they have heard no objections from local landowners.
3.4 The adjacent parish council (Catterlen ) have also been notified, but did not comment on this application.
3.5 The Environment Agency have no objections.
3.6 Natural England have no objections regarding statutory nature conservation sites or protected species stating that the proposed development would be unlikely to affect bats or otters.
3.7 The Highway Authority have no objections. They are satisfied with the submitted details and request the imposition of conditions regarding access detail and provision.
3.8 The Historic Environment Record Officer has no objections or comments.
3.9 Mr AP Richardson is the local county council member for the electoral division which this application falls within (Greystoke & Hesket ). He called in this application for a site visit and a committee decision at the Special Development Control and Regulation Committee meeting of Tuesday 24 September 2013 and a Site Visit was subsequently held Wednesday 2 October 2013.
3.10 No representations have been received.
4.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 4.1 Location
4.2 The proposed WwTW would be located within a grade 3 agricultural field that currently comprises improved pastoral grassland. The site has been positioned so as to be adjacent to the north western field boundary. The site lies approximately 300m from the eastern edge of the main hub of Laithes village and 100m north of Laithes Bridge and the River Petteril.
4.3 The site would be immediately opposite (south-east) of a camping and caravanning site associated with Town End Cottage. Town End Cottage would be the nearest residential receptor being approximately 130m from the proposed works. The next nearest potential receptors would be the cluster of three residential properties at Laithes Bridge being approximately 145m from the proposed site. The other properties at Town End are approximately 170m from the site.
PagePage 1133 Scheme Overview
4.4 The proposed WwTW is a vital part of the first time sewage scheme for Laithes and Catterlen that will deliver substantial environmental benefits by providing scope to remove properties from these villages from reliance on poorly performing septic tanks, therefore improving water quality of the River Petteril and Henley Sike.
Policy Context
4.5 The key relevant Development Plan Policy against which this application must be considered is Policy DC4(f) of the Cumbria Minerals & Waste Development Framework’s [CMWDF] Generic Development Control Policies; which states that waste water treatment facilities will be permitted in appropriate locations if proposals have minimised any adverse environmental impacts. On consideration of the application, the principle potential adverse impact of the proposed WwPS is considered to be landscape and visual (Policy DC12).
Landscape & Visual Impact
4.6 The site is located within landscape subtype 6 ‘Intermediate Farmland’ as defined by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. The key characteristics of this landscape type in this area are the presence of extensive areas of improved grazing pasture with regular patterns of hedges, wooded valleys, open rivers and ghylls. Though the site is located at a low-point in the valley associated with the River Petteril, it would be contained relatively well by the existing topography and foliage (copses, trees, hedgerows) so as not to have an impact on the wider landscape.
4.7 The proposed security fencing, large area of concrete hardstanding and fixed machinery equipment could appear to be isolated alien features in this landscape type, however their presence would be softened by the proposed screen planting, and recessive green colour palette applied to the fencing and above ground equipment. While the deployment of new additional hedgerow would be in-keeping with the areas landscape character type and provide screening. The security fence type and height are accepted as necessary in the interests of public safety.
4.8 Views to the proposed WwTW from the north-west of the site (i.e. Town End) are partially screened by the existing hedgerow and mature tree planting lining the U3029. There would be potential views/glimpses into the site looking eastward from the south-eastern periphery of the main village hub and clear views from the highway to the south having crossed over to the north side of Laithes Bridge. The main elements of the development that stand to have the greatest visual impact are, in rough order of anticipated visibility are: the boundary fencing, the welfare facility unit, the control kiosk and Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) tank.
4.9 The proposed screen planting measures proposed would substantially reduce views of the site to its west and soften its visual impact from the highway to the south. The existing mature belts of trees around Laithes Bridge meanwhile ensure the site would not be visible from the properties located at Laithes Bridge. There are no clear views into the field in which the site would be located from the highway to the North (which is the only public viewpoint in this direction) due to the lie of the land and heavily vegetated highway verges. The thick bands of trees along the field boundaries would serve to screen it from the east. United
PagePage 114 4 Utilities wish their proposals for screen planting on the northern and eastern boundaries of the site to be determined via submission under condition. Planting within this area would provide a backdrop that would help further shelter and enclose the site.
4.10 Though this development would undoubtedly have a landscape and visual impact within this location in the open countryside, its sensitive siting, choice of materials and proposed screen planting would substantially reduce this and mostly confine its visual impact to views from the highway to the south. Yet even from this vantage point, the screen planting proposed would soften and help blend the site into the wider landscape with the impact being reduced over time as the landscaping planting establishes itself.
Other Planning Considerations
Ecology
4.11 The extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report undertaken is considered adequate in terms of timing, methodology, scope and conclusions. Similarly, the Phase 2 Otter and Bat survey satisfactorily establishes that the development would not impact otters or trees used by roosting bats.
4.12 The improved agricultural grassland upon which the footprint of this development is proposed has a low biodiversity value. The removal of a section of hedgerow to facilitate access to the site has the potential to impact upon nesting birds – consequently any consent would be conditioned to ensure no removal takes place during the bird breeding season. This hedgerow is not considered to be of high importance under the Hedgerow Regulations (1997) due to the low diversity of woody species and lack of associated features. The landscaping proposals for the site would provide additional hedgerow planting on the sites western and southern sides which would result in a net increase in hedgerow habitat.
Odour and Noise
4.13 The small scale of the sewage network that the WwTW will serve (with 65 properties proposed to be connected – and with capacity for a further 20) will translate to a very low volume of foul flows. All pre-treatment flows are below- ground and covered and United Utilities state that under the correct operating conditions there will be negligible odour associated with these flows. The RBC treatment method proposed at this site was selected specifically for this site over other treatment types as it provides the most compact footprint and as it is covered - thus eliminating noise, odour and fly problems. Consequently the development is not likely to generate any significant levels of odour likely to offend passers-by or occupants of the nearest properties.
4.14 Similarly, the control kiosk and below-ground equipment do not generate any significant levels of noise and will not be audible to passers-by or occupants of the nearest properties. The Environment Agency and Eden’s Environmental Health department have no comments or objections to make regarding potential odour or noise. Resultantly, I am satisfied that the engineering design will ensure there will be negligible amenity impact associated with noise or odour.
PagePage 1155 Access / Traffic
4.15 The proposed WwTW would be accessed off the U3029 road between Catterlen and Laithes. The access would be approximately 25m from this roads junction with the C3010 (Netwon Reigny / Skelton Road). The site access has been sized to ensure appropriate site lines for vehicles entering and exiting the site and a turning area provided to allow vehicles to enter and exit in forward gear. The gate has been positioned to allow vehicles to pull off the highway without causing conflict to other road users. Highways are satisfied with the access location.
4.16 The use of concrete for the access track is noted as having been selected as the most appropriate material for withstanding the stresses that would be imposed by the type of vehicles anticipated, in particular the effects of slow manoeuvring, and for maintaining a slip-free surface for operatives.
Water Environment
4.17 The site has been designed so as to allow complete containment of any spillage of sludge, oil or chemical, and thereby prevent any risk of local contamination.
Human Rights Act 1998 4.18 The proposal will have a limited impact on the visual, residential and environmental amenities of the area. Any impacts on the rights of local property owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) are minimal and proportionate to the wider social and economic interests of the community.
Conclusion
4.19 The proposal would facilitate the provision of necessary waste water treatment facilities required as part of a new first-time sewage scheme that would help deliver significant environmental benefits by providing the scope to remove properties within Laithes and Catterlen from reliance on private septic tanks (- a number of which have been causing pollution in the local area). Thus there is a clear need for this works to serve the scheme somewhere in the area.
4.20 The proposed location is considered appropriate and has not raised any objection. Though WwTWs are industrial in nature and notable in form and size the applicant has sensitively designed and landscaped the scheme to minimise its harm upon the local landscape character and visual amenity. Consequently it is considered to comply with policy and I recommend that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.
Mr Edward Page Planning Officer Tel: 01539 713424, Email: [email protected] Electoral Division Identification Greystoke & Hesket ED - Mr AP Richardson Background Papers Planning Application File Reference No. 3/13/9009 \\ccc-prdc-fp03\kendal$\Filing\planning\applications\eden\2013\3139009_Laithes_WwTW_(PP-02698850)
PagePage 116 6 Appendix 2 Ref No. 3/13/9009 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 18 October 2013
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010
Summary of Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission
1 This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, the relevant development plan policies, and in the context of national planning policy framework.
2 The key development plan policies taken into account by the County Council before granting permission were as follows:
CUMBRIA MINERALS & WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK [CMWDF]
Generic Development Control Policies 2009-2020 (Adopted April 2009 ) Policy DC 4 - Criteria for Waste Management Facilities … f. Waste water treatment facilities will be permitted in appropriate locations if proposals have minimised any adverse environmental impacts, / …
Policy DC 10 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity Proposals for minerals and waste developments that would have impacts on locally important biodiversity and geological conservation assets, as defined in the Core Strategy, will be required to identify their likely impacts on, and also their potential to enhance, restore or add to these resources, and to functional ecological and green infrastructure networks. Enhancement measures should contribute to national, regional and local biodiversity and geodiversity objectives and targets, and to functional ecological and green infrastructure networks. Proposals for developments within, or affecting the features or settings of such resources, should demonstrate that: a. the need for, and benefits of, the development and the reasons for locating the development in its proposed location and that alternatives have been considered. b. appropriate measures to mitigate any adverse effects (direct, indirect and cumulative) have been identified and secured, and advantage has been taken of opportunities to incorporate beneficial biodiversity and geological conservation features, or c. where adverse impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated for, that appropriate compensatory measures have been identified and secured, and d. that all mitigation, enhancement or compensatory measures are compatible with the characteristics of, and features within, Cumbria.
Policy DC 12 - Landscape Proposals for development should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria's landscapes and should: a. avoid significant adverse impacts on the natural and historic landscape, b. use Landscape Character Assessment to assess the capacity of landscapes to accept development, to inform the appropriate scale and character of such
PagePage 1177 development, and guide restoration where development is permitted, c. in appropriate cases use the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment to assess and integrate these issues into the development process, d. ensure that development proposals consider the effects on: locally distinctive natural or built features; scale in relation to landscape features; public access and community value of the landscape; historic patterns and attributes; and openness, remoteness and tranquility, e. ensure high quality design of modern waste facilities to minimise their impact on the landscape, or views from sensitive areas, and to contribute to the built environment, f. direct minerals and waste developments to less sensitive locations, wherever this is possible, and ensure that sensitive siting and high quality design prevent significant adverse impacts on the principal local characteristics of the landscape including views from, and the setting of, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Heritage Coast or National Parks.
Policy DC 14 – The Water Environment Planning permission will only be granted for developments that would have no unacceptable quantitative or qualitative adverse effects on the water environment, including surface waters and groundwater resources. Proposals that minimise water use and include sustainable water management will be favoured.
3 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) is also a material consideration, and has been taken into account in this report with reference to: Paragraph 14 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development , which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. … For decision-taking this means: " approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and
4 In summary, the reasons for granting permission are that the County Council is of the opinion that the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan, there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made otherwise and with the planning conditions included in the notice of planning consent, any harm would reasonably be mitigated. Furthermore, any potential harm to interests of acknowledged importance is likely to be negligible and would be outweighed by the benefits of the development.
PagePage 118 8 Appendix 2 Ref No. 3/13/9009 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 18 October 2013
Conditions
Time Limit for Implementation of Permission
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Approved Documents
2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved documents, hereinafter referred to as the approved scheme. The approved scheme shall comprise the following:
a. The submitted Application Form – dated 14 August 2013 b. Design and Access Statement – Rev.B – dated 09 October 2013 c. Supporting Statement – Rev.B – dated 09 October 2013 d. Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report Rev2 – dated July 2013- Catterlen and Laithes e. Phase 2 Otter and Bat Surveys – Rev1 – dated August 2013 f. Arboricultual Report - dated 15 July 2013 (JCA Ref 11168AB) g. Plans numbered and named: i) P371_80029163_00_97_20015_RevA - Site Layout Plan - Laithes WwTW ii) P371_80029163_00_97_20016_RevA - WwTW Kiosk Elevations iii) P371_80029163_00_97_20017_RevA - Site Elevations Laithes WwTW iv) P371_80029163_00_97_9200_RevA - Tree Retention, Removal and Protection Plan v) P371_80029163_00_97_9400_RevB - Landscaping Proposals Plan h. The details or schemes approved in relation to conditions attached to this permission. i. This Decision Notice
Reason: To avoid confusion as to what comprises the approved scheme and ensure the development is carried out to an approved appropriate standard.
Pre-Development Site Levels
3. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed topographic survey of the pre-development ground levels of the application site and immediately surrounding area shall be submitted for approval. Once approved, the ground levels shall not be raised above the levels shown in this plan.
Reason: In the interests of visual and landscape amenity
Further Design Detail
4. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed plan and elevation drawing of the Rotating Biological Contacter (RBC) Unit shall be submitted along with an updated and revised copy of plan “P371_80029163_00_97_20017_RevA - Site Elevations Laithes WwTW” for approval. The unit shall not exceed 1.5m in height
PagePage 1199 above the existing ground level. The RBC shall be installed as specified on the approved plans.
Reason: To reserve for subsequent approval by the Local Planning Authority, details relevant to the development hereby permitted which were not submitted with the planning application, in the interests of visual and landscape amenity.
Further Landscaping Detail
5. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed final landscaping plan shall be submitted for the approval of the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of:
a. the proposed screening landscaping proposed for the eastern and northern boundaries of the site including details of all plant/tree species, their number, planting size, spacing, location and protection. b. the landscape considerations and rationale behind the proposed scheme. Once approved, the scheme shall be implemented in its entirety in the first planting season following completion.
Reason: To reserve for subsequent approval by the Local Planning Authority, details relevant to the development hereby permitted which were not submitted with the planning application, in the interests of visual and landscape amenity.
Planting Maintenance
6. Any trees or shrubs which die or become seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with plants of the same species or such species as may otherwise be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and visual and landscape amenity.
Hedgerow Removal
7. No hedgerow or tree removal, or related site clearance, shall take place during the bird nesting season (i.e. between the 1st March and 31st August inclusive in any year).
Reason: To ensure appropriate protection for breeding birds under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Vehicular Access Detail and Delivery
8. Prior to the commencement of development, plans showing the construction detail, drainage measures and levels of the vehicular access areas bounded by the carriageway edge and the boundary gates for the wastewater treatment works site shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the scheme shall be implemented in full.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
9. Prior to the commencement of any other aspects of the development, the new site access for the wastewater treatment works site, along with its access track and turning area shall be installed/constructed so that constructional traffic can safely park and turn clear of the highway. Once complete the accesses shall be retained
PagePage 120 10 capable of use thereafter and shall not be altered without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety as the carrying out of development without the provision of these facilities is likely to lead to inconvenience and danger to road users. Retention of the facilities ensures an appropriate standard of parking and access for as long as the use continues.
Highway Condition
10. Measures shall be put in place for the duration of the construction to ensure that no mud or other debris from the site is tracked on to the public highway.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of highway/road users.
PagePage 11121 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 122 Agenda Item 7e DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 18 October 2013 A Report to the Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability ______
Application No: 3/13/9010 District: Eden
Applicant: United Utilities Plc Parish: SkeltonParish Council Clearwater 4 Lingley Green Avenue Received: 14 August 2013 Warrington ______
PROPOSAL: Erection of a new outfall into the River Petteril Land adj. to River Petteril off C3010, South of Town End Cottage, Laithes ______
PagePage 1231 1.0 RECOMMENDATION 1.1 That planning permission is Granted for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 It is proposed to construct an outfall point on the north bank of the River Petteril approximately 80m North-west of Laithes Bridge. The outfall structure comprises a 150mm diameter black plastic sewer pipe set into, and flush with, a concrete surround and headwall which will be finished with a random rubble pitching utilising locally quarried stone. The entire outfall structure would have a footprint 5m 2. It would be set into the existing river bank profile so that there will be no changes to existing ground levels of the river embankment.
2.2 The outfall is required in association with a new first-time sewage scheme for Laithes and Catterlen whereby properties from both villages will be connected to mains sewerage. The outfall will discharge the cleaned final effluent from the proposed wastewater treatment works (WwTW) (planning application 3/13/9009) into the River Petteril.
3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 Eden District Council Planning have no comments.
3.2 Eden District Council’s Environmental Protection team have no objections.
3.3 Skelton Parish Council support the principle of the installation and its position within Laithes on the basis that they have heard no objections from local landowners.
3.4 The adjacent parish council (Catterlen ) have also been notified, but did not comment on this application.
3.5 The Environment Agency have no objection in principle to the erection of a new outfall into the River Petteril.
3.6 Natural England have no objections regarding statutory nature conservation sites or protected species stating that the proposed development would be unlikely to affect otters.
3.7 The Highway Authority have no objections.
3.8 The Historic Environment Record Officer has no objections or comments.
3.9 Mr AP Richardson is the local county council member for the electoral division which this application falls within (Greystoke & Hesket ). He called in this application for a site visit and a committee decision at the special Development Control and Regulation Committee meeting held on Tuesday 24 September 2013. The site was visited by the committee on Wednesday 2 October 2013.
3.10 No representations have been received.
PagePage 124 2 4.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT Location
4.1 The outfall point would be situated on the northern bank of the river (at grid reference NY 46694 32779) adjacent to a field in pastoral agricultural use. The outfall would be approximately 300m downstream of the eastern extent of Laithes village and would be approximately 80m north-east of the cluster of three residential properties located south of the river at Laithes Bridge. The next nearest residential property is Town End Cottage which would be 220m to the north. A short (approximately 300m section) of public footpath (Right of Way No. 321001) runs along the southern bank of the River Peterill between Laithes Bridge and Laithes Village.
Scheme Overview
4.2 The outfall is a small but key part of the first time sewage scheme for Laithes and Catterlen which will deliver substantial environmental benefits by providing scope to remove properties from these villages from reliance on septic tanks, therefore improving water quality of the River Petteril and Henley Sike. The sewage scheme has been designed to treat the current population equivalent, with a limited amount of excess capacity. Thereby it is highly unlikely there will be any amenity problems related to capacity issues. Similarly, the scheme is strictly foul- only, as such there will be no surface water connections made to the new sewer, so there is no possibility of storm-related discharges to the new outfall.
Policy Context
4.3 The key relevant Development Plan Policy against which this application must be considered is Policy DC4(f) of the Cumbria Minerals & Waste Development Framework’s [CMWDF] Generic Development Control Policies; which states that waste water treatment facilities will be permitted in appropriate locations if proposals have minimised any adverse environmental impacts.
Assessment of Key Potential Impacts
Ecology
The footprint of the outfall would result in the development of a small unshaded, ecologically unpromising area of river bank where nettles, thistles and other weed species are present. Consequently there is no terrestrial ecological habitat of note at the proposed location of the outfall. There is, however, evidence that Otters are active in this area of the River Petteril and its tributary streams. The resulting Phase II Otter Survey undertaken is deemed satisfactory and found no evidence/presence of any holt or resting habitat within the vicinity of the outfall. To ensure there is no disturbance to any otters during construction of the outfall, it is proposed to restrict construction working to daylight hours.
Visual
4.4 The outfall is not overlooked by any residential properties, but may be visible from the public footpath. The outfall pipe will not protrude beyond the stone surround and the pointing on the outfall surround will hide the cut end of the black plastic pipe. The outfall’s design, by virtue of its sympathetic profiling to
PagePage 1253 minimise its landscape impact and use of local stone for its external finish will ensure that it will be aesthetically acceptable and relatively unobtrusive. Consequently its impact upon the visual and landscape amenity of the area is considered to be minimal/negligible.
Odour
4.5 United Utilities state that under the correct operating conditions, there will be negligible odour associated with the treated flows that pass out of the outfall. The quality of the discharge will be agreed under consent from the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency and Eden’s Environmental Health Department have no comments/objections regarding potential odour.
Other / Miscellaneous Matters
4.6 The outfall would be within Flood Risk Zone 3, but in planning terms, is classed as a water compatible development by the National Planning Policy Framework. The applicant will require formal flood defence consent from the Environment Agency.
4.7 The proposed outfall will only be accessible by foot. Should any servicing or repair be required, then United Utilities operatives would park at the proposed WwTW and walk across to the site. Stockproof fencing is already present along the river bank.
Human Rights Act 1998 4.8 The proposal will have a limited impact on the visual and environmental amenity of the area. Any impacts on the rights of local property owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) are minimal and proportionate to the wider social and economic interests of the community.
Conclusion
4.9 This proposed outfall development is a vital part of a new first-time sewage scheme that would help deliver significant environmental benefits by providing the scope to remove properties within Laithes and Catterlen from reliance on private septic tanks (- a number of which have been causing pollution in the local area). Consequently it would result in significant environmental improvements.
4.10 The outfall has been sensitively sited and designed and would have no adverse environmental or visual impacts. It is therefore considered to comply with policy and I recommend that that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.
Mr Edward Page Planning Officer
Electoral Division Identification Greystoke & Hesket ED - Mr AP Richardson Tel: 01539 713424, Email: [email protected]
*\\ccc-prdc-fp03\kendal$\Filing\planning\applications\eden\2013\3139010_Laithes_Outfall_(PP-02698879)
PagePage 126 4 Appendix 1 Ref No. 3/13/9010 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 18 October 2013
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010
Summary of Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission
1 This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, the relevant development plan policies, and in the context of national planning policy framework.
2 The key development plan policies taken into account by the County Council before granting permission were as follows:
CUMBRIA MINERALS & WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK [CMWDF]
Generic Development Control Policies 2009-2020 (Adopted April 2009) Policy DC 4 - Criteria for Waste Management Facilities … f. Waste water treatment facilities will be permitted in appropriate locations if proposals have minimised any adverse environmental impacts, / …
Policy DC 14 – The Water Environment Planning permission will only be granted for developments that would have no unacceptable quantitative or qualitative adverse effects on the water environment, including surface waters and groundwater resources. Proposals that minimise water use and include sustainable water management will be favoured.
3 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) is also a material consideration, and has been taken into account in this report with reference to: Paragraph 14 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development , which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. … For decision-taking this means: " approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and
4 In summary, the reasons for granting permission are that the County Council is of the opinion that the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan, there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made otherwise and with the planning conditions included in the notice of planning consent, any harm would reasonably be mitigated. Furthermore, any potential harm to interests of acknowledged importance is likely to be negligible and would be outweighed by the benefits of the development.
PagePage 1275 Appendix 2 Ref No. 3/13/9010 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 18 October 2013
Conditions
Time Limit for Implementation of Permission
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Approved Documents
2 The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved documents, hereinafter referred to as the approved scheme. The approved scheme shall comprise the following:
a. The submitted Application Form – dated 14 August 2013 b. Design and Access Statement – dated 22 August 2013 c. Drawing P371_80029163_00_97_20019-RevB - Outfall Details (Site Plan, Elevations) d. Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report Rev2 (July 2013) - Catterlen and Laithes e. Phase 2 Otter and Bat Surveys – Rev1 (August 2013) f. This Decision Notice
Reason: To avoid confusion as to what comprises the approved scheme and ensure the development is carried out to an approved appropriate standard.
Protection of Otters
3 No operations hereby permitted shall take place outside the following hours:
09.00 hours to 17.00 hours Mondays to Fridays 09.00 hours to 13.00 hours on Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason: To avoid disturbance of Otters.
4 All plant engaged in construction, and any stored construction materials, shall be checked to prior to use or movement to ensure otters are not sheltering underneath or by them.
Reason: To prevent harm to otters.
Informatives Flood Defence Consent will need to be sought from the Environment Agency in relation to this application. Please note that due to the presence of Trout, brook lamprey and bullhead spawn in this river (& salmon spawn further downstream) the Agency advise that any such consent would be subject to a condition to ensure no in-river works are undertaken October to May inclusive.
PagePage 128 6 Agenda Item 7f
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 18 October 2013 A Report by the Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability ______
Application No: 4/13/9007 District: Copeland
Applicant: Story Homes Parish:
Received: 25 June 2013
PROPOSAL Temporary storage of excess materials from nearby residential development of Anhydrite and slag up to 2018 Former TDG Tanker Depot, High Road, Whitehaven, CA28 9QJ
Page 129 1.0 RECOMMENDATION
1.1 That planning permission is Granted for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 This is a partial retrospective application and time extension for the temporary storage of excess material arising from adjacent housing development from 1 June 2015 to 1 June 2018. Planning permission was granted in 2010 for the “Temporary storage of excess material from nearby residential development comprising of anhydrite and slag” (4/10/9009).
2.2 The original temporary planning permission allowed for the storage of approximately 11,500 m² of slag and anhydrite to be stored on site until 1 June 2015. The material has arisen from the adjacent housing development on High Road.
2.3 Over the course of time the original site of approximately 1 hectare and amount of material stored on site has increased significantly to 1.79 hectare hence the reason for requesting a revised application.
2.4 The material is stored within a compound which was previously used as a transport depot. The compound has a landscaped bund which is approximately 2.5 m in height and with a security fence around the bund.
2.5 A flood risk and surface water drainage statement has been submitted. The site drains via a series of gullies and channel slot drains and would continue follow the existing arrangements. In critical rainfall events surface water run off from the profiled made ground would typically discharge to the gullies and channel slot drains on the depot hardstanding with a limited proportion discharging to the adjacent soft landscaped (agricultural) land which is in the same land ownership as the TDG depot site.
3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Copeland Borough Council – no objections subject to a temporary 5 year period.
3.2 Highway Authority - no objections.
3.3 Environment Agency – The waste is stoned at the site under a CL:AiRE protocol. The operator has demonstrated certainty of use of this material so we expect the material to be used by September 2016. The waste does not therefore require an environmental permit for storage of waste provided the CL:AiRE protocol and Materials Management Plan are complied with and the waste is used by the above date. However we expect the waste to be stored appropriately with sealed drainage to ensure that no polluting run off leaves the site.
3.4 The local Member - Ms W Skillicorn has been notified.
3.5 No representations had been received when this report was prepared.
Page 130 4.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT
4.1 The application site is a former depot which is accessed onto High Road. The site was originally cleared in 2010 to make way for the storage of material from the then first phase of a significant housing development. The site has a 2.5 m high screen bund and the material which is stored on site is located behind the screen bund. The existing screen bund does provide a visual screening barrier which reduces any visual impact on the area. There is also a security fence around the site.
4.2 The application site is close to the junction with Wilson Pit Road and High Road and lies almost directly opposite West Coast Composting. The nearest residential property is some 300 m away. A public footpath runs to the south of the site.
4.3 The applicant considers the temporary storage and reuse of the material excavated from the housing development is the most environmentally friendly option available to them allowing reuse of material and reducing lorry movements in the longer term.
4.4 The Environment Agency have agreed to the storage of the material complies with CL:AiRE protocol and that subject to the material being stored appropriately with sealed drainage to ensure that no polluting run off leaves the site. Under the CL:AiRE protocol the length of time for the storage of the material on the TDG site has been agreed until September 2016. Thereby the request by the applicant to retain the material on site until 2018 requires to be amended to comply with the CL:AiRE protocol. It is therefore proposed to amend condition no 1 would allow storage until 30 September 2016.
4.5 Minerals and Waste Development Framework Core Strategy Policy 1 requires developments to minimise ‘waste road miles’ and the construction of building’s should make best use of products made from recycled/re-used materials. Policy 2 relates to economic benefit and states that it is important to ensure that waste development should not prejudice other regeneration and development initiatives.
4.6 National Planning Policy Framework encourages Local Planning Authorities to be committed to securing economic growth to create jobs, prosperity and building on the Country’s strengths to meet the challenges of global competition and a low carbon future. The scheme contributes to local employment and reduction in waste roads miles reducing carbon emissions of HGV’s.
Human Rights Act 1998 4.7 The proposal will have a limited impact on the visual and environmental amenity of the area. Any impacts on the rights of local property owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) are minimal and proportionate to the wider social and economic interests of the community.
Page 131 Conclusion
4.8 The material stored is to be re-used within the adjacent new housing development which is still under construction. Whilst the proposal is semi retrospective for the storage of the additional material close to where it originates it is the best sustainable solution as this reduces road miles, carbon emissions and land filling.
4.9 It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to appropriately worded conditions being imposed.
Paul Feehily Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability
Contact
Mrs Jayne Petersen, Kendal, Tel: 01539 713549,; Email: [email protected] Background Papers
Planning Application File Reference No. 4/13/9007 Electoral Division Identification
Kells & Sandwith - Ms W Skillicorn
M:\applications\copeland\2013\4139007_high road_whitehaven_temp_materials_storage(PP-02674205)\D C & R Report.doc
Page 132 Appendix 1 Ref No. 4/13/9007 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 18 October 2013
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010
Summary of Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission
1 This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, in the context of national planning policy guidance and the relevant development plan policies.
2 The key development plan policies taken into account by the County Council before granting permission were as follows:
National Planning Policy Framework
1. Building a strong competitive economy
The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future.
Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Generic Development Control Policies - April 2009
DC Policy 1 – Sustainable Location and Design
Proposals for minerals and waste management developments should demonstrate that:
Energy management, environmental performance and carbon reduction have been determining design factors Their location will minimise, as far as is practicable, the ‘minerals or waste road miles’ involved in supplying the minerals or managing the wastes unless other environmental/sustainability and, for minerals, geological consideration override this aim Where appropriate, the restoration proposals have a role in helping to combat climate change Construction of buildings minimises waste production and use of primary aggregates and makes best use of products made from recycled/re-used materials
Page 133 DC Policy 2 – Economic Benefit
Proposals for new minerals and waste developments should demonstrate that they would realise their potential to provide economic benefit. This will include such matters as the number of jobs directly or indirectly created or safeguarded and the support that proposals give to other industries and developments. It will also be important to ensure that minerals and waste developments would not prejudice other regeneration and development initiatives.
3 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) is also a material consideration, and has been taken into account in this report with reference to:
Paragraph 14 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development , which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.
4 In summary, the reasons for granting permission are that the County Council is of the opinion that the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan, there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made otherwise and with the planning conditions included in the notice of planning consent, any harm would reasonably by mitigated. Furthermore, any potential harm to interests of acknowledged importance is likely to be negligible and would be outweighed by the benefits of the development.
Page 134 Appendix 2 Ref No. 4/13/9007 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 18 October 2013
Proposed Conditions
Time Limit for Implementation of Permission 1. This permission is for a temporary period only expiring on 30 September 2016 by which date the deposited material shall have been removed f rom the site and the land restored to its former level. Reason: A temporary consent would allow time for the deposited material to rehydrate and a reuse found for it on neighbouring developments.
Approved Documents 2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved documents, hereinafter referred to as the approved scheme. The approved scheme shall comprise the following: a. The submitted Application Form – dated 18 June 2013 b. Design and Access Statement – dated June 2013 c. Flood risk and surface water drainage statement d. Plans numbered: i) SH067.90.9.SL.TDG.LP – location plan ii) 300 P1 – external layout and existing levels iii) 302 A - sections iv) SH067.90.9.SL.TGD.SS1 – topographical survey of stored materials v) 001 rev P2 – Outline planning area externals layout 1 of 3 dated 04/2013 e. This Decision Notice Reason: To ensure the development is carried out to an approved appropriate standard and to avoid confusion as to what comprises the approved scheme.
3 The temporary works signage and measures to ensure that the public highway is kept clear of mud and debris from the site shall retained for the lifetime of this permission.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety
4 The Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing 48 hours before the commencement of the import of material to the site and 48 hours prior to the removal of material from the site.
Reason: To enable the use of the site to be monitored in the interests of highway safety.
Page 135 5. No loading or transportation of materials or operation of plant or machinery, shall take place on site outside the hours:
07.00 to 18.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays No construction activity shall take place on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays without the prior approval of the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that no operations take place outside normal working hours which would lead to an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties.
6. Material stored on the site shall be managed to prevent the establishment of any noxious agricultural weeds in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be submitted within 2 months of the date of this planning permission.
When approved the scheme shall be implemented in its entirety during the life of this permission.
Reason: To ensure that the site is managed to prevent the spread of noxious agricultural weeds.
7. The height of the material stored within the bunded area shall not exceed the height of the existing screen bunds.
Reason : To ensure the site is not visually intrusive within the existing landscape.
8. The material shall stored on site with sealed drainage to ensure no polluting run-off leaves the site.
Reason : In order to protect the water environment.
Informative
The applicant should ensure that a CL:AiRE Material Management Plan (MMP) shall be in place in accordance with Environment Agency protocol.
Page 136 Agenda Item 7g
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 18 OCTOBER 2013 A Report by the Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability ______
Application No: 4/13/9008 District: Copeland
Applicant: Mr Rob Yetts Parish: Drigg & Carleton Low Level Waste Repository Ltd Old Shore Road Received: 15 August 2013 Near Drigg Holmrook
PROPOSAL Application for the variation of Conditions of Planning Consent 4/06/9016 relating to the Decommissioning of PCM Retrieval facilities. Low Level Waste Repository, near Drigg, Holmrook, CA19 1XL ______
Page 137 1.0 RECOMMENDATION
1.1 That planning permission is Granted for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Planning permission was granted in 2000 (reference 4/99/9030) to allow the safe removal of Plutonium Contaminated Materials (PCMs) from the Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR) to Sellafield for safe and secure storage. The application permitted the construction of a number of facilities on the site to allow this activity to be carried out.
2.2 The transfers of bulk PCM material was completed in 2007 and since that time assessments and clear out activities have been taking place to remove any residual contamination from the facilities.
2.3 Planning consent (ref: 4/06/9016) was for a temporary period only relating to the PCM activities and condition 1 required the removal or demolition by 31 December 2010 of ‘each of the buildings, magazines, hard standing and other structures…’ associated with the PCM retrieval facilities.
2.4 Planning consent 4/10/9002 amended the approved scheme (under condition 1 of planning consent 4/06/9016) so that three buildings could be retained on site. These were a crate processing facility (retained for maintenance of containers, buffer storage and general LLWR operational support), the drum processing facility (retained for support to LLWR operations) and the accommodation block. It was proposed that the remaining 12 buildings would be decommissioned and either demolished or removed to an alternative site.
2.5 This new application seeks to amend the existing consented hours, agreed under consent 4/10/9002, for working on the PCM (Plutonium Contaminated Material) Retrieval Project to enable completion of the project by 2018, five years ahead of schedule of the original anticipated completion date of 2023.
2.6 The working hours approved in planning consent 4/10/9002 are split to cover the two different areas of the project associated with firstly the Plutonium Contaminated Material (PDM) clean up operations within the buildings; and then secondly the final decommissioning which involves the demolition of these buildings. The current hours permitted for working on the PCM Retrieval project are restricted to between 06.30 and 18.00 on Mondays to Saturdays for operations within the building; and between 07.30 – 18.00 Mondays to Fridays for the Final Decommissioning (i.e. demolition) work. This application seeks to amend the condition to allow operations within buildings, and the transfer of waste between them, to be carried out for any continuous 12 hour period between 06.00 – 19.30 Mondays to Sundays; and the Final Decommissioning work to remain the same and be restricted to within 07.30 – 18.00 Mondays to Fridays. It is proposed that the hours of working condition would retain the caveat that no demolition work would take place on the PCM Retrieval Project on public holidays, except with the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Page 138 3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Drigg & Carleton Parish Council and the Highway Authority have no objections.
3.2 Copeland Borough Council ; the Environment Agency ; the Health and Safety Executive; and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority have been consulted but no reply has been received.
3.3 The local Member Mr K Hitchen, Seascale & Whicham ED (electoral boundary changed 2013) has been notified.
3.4 One letter of objection has been received from the owners of Drigg Moorside whose property is located approximately 0.6 miles from the closest building that forms part of the Plutonium Contaminated Retrieval Project. Drigg Moorside is a working farm and also has diversified over recent years to create a camp site, and also has holiday cottages. The owners raise concerns that they already experience noise from the site commencing from around 7am, 7 days a week, with reversing sensors on machinery, sirens, loud voices, and banging and crashing of what seem to be large items, some of which can clearly be heard from inside their house. They also comment that they have noticed a large increase in traffic using the B5344 (the road between Drigg and Seascale) to travel to Sellafield and the Drigg site, the same road that their property and business is located.
3.5 The residents acknowledge that this work does need to be carried out, but during reasonable working days of between 07.30 and 19.30 Mondays to Friday only, with no weekend or bank holidays. They feel that the work should be carried out in such a way so as to not create too much disturbance and upset to nearby residents and businesses, irrespective of how long the work will take to complete. They suggest that the sensors on vehicles are already noisy and from inside their property they can clearly hear the sensors on vehicles within the LLWR internal roads. They also comment that not all the traffic passes through the centre of Drigg Village, and that the largest impact is along their roadside, where guests are residing in tents and caravans, whom will be disturbed the most, especially on weekends.
4.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Policy
4.1 The Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) Core Strategy Policy 12 recognises the importance of the LLWR at Drigg to continue to fulfil a role as a component of the UK’s radioactive waste management capability.
4.2 Development Control Policy DC2, General Criteria, of the Cumbria MWDF states that Minerals and Waste proposals must, where appropriate, demonstrate that noise levels would be within acceptable limits, with consideration taken for the proximity of sensitive receptors, including impacts on surrounding land uses, hours of operations, and phasing and duration of working.
Page 139 4.3 At present the project has consent for operations to be carried out inside the building between 06.30 and 18.00 Mondays to Saturdays, a total of 11.5 hours per day, 6 days a week. It is proposed that this be changed to any continuous 12 hours period between 06.00 to 19.30 Mondays to Sundays, a total of 13.5 hours, of which only 12 continuous hours can be worked, 7 days a week. Taking this into account the hours of working proposed would only result in a maximum of 30 minutes extra per day on Mondays to Saturdays, and the main impact being the additional 12 working hours on Sundays, and working Bank Holidays. Hours for decommissioning are proposed to remain the same as presently allowed through the current planning consent, 07.30 – 18.00 Mondays to Fridays, and that no demolition work would take place on the PCM Retrieval Project on public holidays except with the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority. I consider that this needs to be more explicit and should be amended to include no working on weekends as well as public holidays without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
4.4 The residents of Drigg Moorside, whose property is approximately 0.6 miles from the closest building which forms part of the PCM Retrieval project, have objected to the application. They have raised concern about existing noise from the LLWR site, in particular the large bangs that the resident described are likely to be from the stacking of the containers in Vault 9. It is difficult to isolate whether this noise is from the work associated with the PCM Retrieval Project, and not from existing operations elsewhere on the LLWR site. Conditions relating to noise limits were imposed on the previous planning consent and will remain on this consent to be adhered to. It is not anticipated that the change in working hours would result in additional vehicle movements within the site. The applicant advises that the same number of staff, which consists of 16 operatives, will be working on the PCM Retrieval project, and that change in hours would just allow a more time effective shift pattern of working 4 days, and then off for 4 days, covering 7 days a week between them instead of the current 5 days a week. Therefore the impact of the change of hours would be minimal.
Human Rights Act 1998 4.5 The proposal will have a limited impact on the residential amenity of the area. Any impacts on the rights of local property owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) are minimal and proportionate to the wider social and economic interests of the community.
Page 140 Conclusion
4.6 The proposed change in working hours would allow the PCM Retrieval project to be completed 5 years ahead of schedule. The majority of the work is carried out within the buildings, with the exception for the final demolition of the buildings. The proposed alteration of the consented working hours would result in an addition 30 minutes working time on the current consented hours on Mondays to Saturdays. The main impact of the proposed change in working hours will be Sunday and Bank Holiday working for the decontamination operations taking place within the building, which is not currently permitted. It is considered that due to the decommissioning work taking place within the building, and with no additional members of staff working on the project, that the impacts of the proposed change in hours would be negligible and there would be clear benefits of completing the works ahead of schedule. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.
Paul Feehily Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability
Contact Mrs Emma Lunn, Kendal, Tel: 01539 713 426; Email: [email protected] Background Papers Planning Application File Reference No. 4/13/9008 Electoral Division Identification Seascale & Whicham ED (electoral boundary changed 2013)
\\ccc-prdc-fp03\kendal$\Filing\planning\applications\copeland\2013\4139008_LLWR_Section73_working_hours\REPORT 131018 dcr.doc
Page 141 Appendix 1 Ref No. 4/13/9008 Development Control and Regulation Committee -
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010
Summary of Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission
1 This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, in the context of national planning policy guidance and the relevant development plan policies.
2 The key development plan policies taken into account by the County Council before granting permission were as follows:
Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Core Strategy and Generic Development Control Policies - April 2009
Policy DC2 – General Criteria
Minerals and Waste proposals must, where appropriate, demonstrate that:
a. noise levels, blast vibration and air over-pressure levels would be within acceptable limits, b. there will be no significant degradation of air quality (from dust and emissions), c. public rights of way or concessionary paths are not adversely affected, or if this is not possible, either temporary or permanent alternative provision is made, d. carbon emissions from buildings, plant and transport have been minimised, e. issues of ground stability have been addressed.
Considerations will include:
the proximity of sensitive receptors, including impacts on surrounding land uses, and protected species, how residual and/or mineral wastes will be managed, the extent to which adverse effects can be controlled through sensitive siting and design, or visual or acoustic screening, the use of appropriate and well maintained and managed equipment, phasing and duration of working, progressive restoration, hours of operations, appropriate routes and volumes of traffic, and other mitigation measures.
Page 142 Policy 12 – Low level Radioactive Waste
Provision will be made for the Low level Repository, near Drigg to continue to fulfil a role as a component of the UK’s radioactive waste management capacity. Proposals for very long term storage or disposal of waste will have to demonstrate that they are feasible in relation to the long term integrity of the site with regard to sea level rise and coastal erosion. Proposals for additional storage of disposal facilities will have to demonstrate that they are within the site’s radiological capacity.
The acceptance, by the County Council, of a national role for the Repository is on the basis of the NDA’s and the site operator’s initiatives for reducing the proportions of waste that are consigned to it. The success of those initiatives will be monitored closely, in part through the Council’s membership of the national Low Level Waste Strategy Group.
3 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) is also a material consideration, and has been taken into account in this report with reference to:
Paragraph 14 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development , which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.
4 In summary, the reasons for granting permission are that the County Council is of the opinion that the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan, there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made otherwise and with the planning conditions included in the notice of planning consent, any harm would reasonably by mitigated. Furthermore, any potential harm to interests of acknowledged importance is likely to be negligible and would be outweighed by the benefits of the development.
Page 143 Appendix 2 Ref No. 4/13/9008 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 18 October 2013
Schedule of conditions
1 The buildings to be decommissioned (as detailed in Table 1 of the ‘Planning, Design and Access Statement’ dated 21 December 2009) shall be removed from the site by 31 December 2022. No later than 31 December 2020 a scheme for the final decommissioning and demolition of these buildings shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.
This decommissioning scheme shall include details of the post operational clean out; the subsequent assessment; an assessment of the likely ecological effects of decommissioning; a programme for the removal or demolition by 31 December 2023 of each of the buildings to be removed, magazines, hardstandings and other structures which shall be compatible with the restoration scheme and shall include details of proposed working hours, estimated noise levels and traffic movements.
Reason: To ensure that all the former PCM buildings and hardstandings which are not to be retained are removed from the site within a reasonable period, to protect amenity and wildlife interests and to secure the proper restoration of the site following the approved period for this temporary development.
2 Planning permission is granted for the re-use of the buildings namely B728 Accommodation Block, B726 Crate Process Building and B746 Drum Process Building, solely for the purpose of existing operational activities and maintenance of existing equipment and facilities in connection with the Low Level Waste Repository.
Reason: To retain control over the future operation of the use of the buildings which at the present time have not been specified.
Working Programme
3 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved documents. Any variation to the approved scheme shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority prior to being carried out.
Working Hours
4 No work shall take place, except with the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority, outside the following hours:
a) for operations within the buildings (and transfer of waste between them), any continuous 12 hour period between 0600 – 1930; b) for Final Decommissioning (i.e. demolition) work, 0730 – 1800 Mondays to Fridays. No demolition work shall place on the PCM Retrieval Project on Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays except with the prior written approval
Page 144 of the Local Planning Authority.
This condition shall not prevent essential maintenance works outside these hours or the continuous operation of extractor fans for the ventilation systems of the buildings.
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of local residents and in accordance with Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework Development Control Policy DC2.
Traffic
5 Except for vehicles in excess of 40 tonnes, low loaders and wide loads no vehicles shall enter or leave the site other than by the main entrance. Advance notice of the use of the access from Shore Road by the excepted vehicles shall be given to local residents along Station Road/Shore Road.
Reason: To keep to acceptable levels the impact of vehicle traffic on the amenities of local residents and of other road users.
6 Efficient means for cleaning all vehicles (with the exception of cars) leaving the site shall be maintained for the life of the project and used to ensure that no mud or other material from the site is deposited on the public highway. Adequate drainage shall be provided to ensure that dirty water from any vehicle wash does not cause pollution of watercourses.
Reason: To prevent vehicles carrying material onto the public highway in the interests of highway safety.
Noise
7 All plant, vehicles and machinery used on site shall be effectively silenced at all times in accordance with the manufacturers’ recommendations.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of local residents.
8 During the decommissioning stage of the development the best practicable means shall be used to minimise noise levels at the nearest residential properties. Such means shall include the minimisation of plant on-times, reductions in the number of items of plant used, the sequence of work at different locations, measures to mitigate traffic and, as appropriate, the use of moveable temporary noise screens.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of local residents.
9 Noise levels attributed to the operation of the buildings, shall not exceed 40dB(A) Leq (1 hour) measured at the nearest sensitive receptors or an alternative location agreed with the waste planning authority. Noise levels from lorries using the perimeter access track to and from the buildings hereby approved shall not exceed 43 dB(A) Leq (1 hour) at any of the houses at Summer View.
Page 145 In addition to measurements for dB(A) Leq (1 hour) levels throughout the working day the monitoring scheme detailed below shall provide for the monitoring of maximum noise levels (dB(A) L max) experienced between 0630 and 07.30. If these noise levels exceed 50 dB(A) Lmax the operational practices shall be reviewed and all practicable measures taken to reduce the maximum noise levels.
The results of the noise monitoring shall be made available to the waste planning authority on request.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of local residents in accordance with Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework Development Control Policy DC2
10 The type of reversing warning systems to be used on mobile plant shall be reviewed at least once each year.
Reason: To minimise the noise generated by the reversing alarm systems and to review the effectiveness of the proposed measures to minimise the noise, in accordance with Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework Development Control Policy DC2.
Safeguarding of Watercourses and Drainage
11 Throughout the periods of operation, decommissioning, restoration and aftercare, provision shall be made for the collection, treatment and disposal of all surface water entering or arising on the site to ensure there shall be no pollution of watercourses or adverse impacts on the wildlife habitats of the various water bodies at the Drigg Depot site.
Reason: To avoid pollution of watercourses and to protect wildlife habitats and in accordance with Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework Development Control Policy DC 10.
Lighting
12 Within 6 months of the date of this consent a scheme to minimise light pollution in relation to the buildings the subject of this application shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework policy DC 12.
Page 146 Agenda Item 7h
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 18 October 2013 A Report by the Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability ______
Application No: 6/13/9001 District: Barrow Borough Council
Applicant: Mr John Cooper - JJC Skip Hire Parish: Ltd Coopers Yard Park Road Received: 15 January 2013
PROPOSAL Retrospective Planning Application to Reconstruct Existing Farm Access Track and Deposition of Recycled Inert Waste to Embankments and Landfill Land to North of Sowerby Lodge Farm, Bank Lane, Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, LA14 4QY ______
Page 147 1.0 RECOMMENDATION
1.1 That planning permission is Granted for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions in Appendix 2.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 This is a retrospective application for the reconstruction of an existing farm access track and for the deposition of inert recycled waste to form adjacent embankments and to landfill areas immediately east and west of the access track. The site extends from south to north and is bordered on its west by the coastal fore-shore. The Kimberly Clark Factory on Park Road, the main commercial corridor to Barrow-in-Furness, is located on its eastern boundary, and approximately 100 m further east lies the railway line which runs south to north. The track itself is directly accessed from Bank Lane to the west of Park Road, which provides access to the former Sowerby Lodge Farm, recently converted into residential dwellings.
The Background
2.2 In January 2009, Barrow Borough Council granted planning permission for engineering works to reconstruct a crushed stone aggregate track of approximately 500m long for the purpose of providing improved access to agricultural land along the coastal strip to the north of the former farm buildings. The track required the importation of fill materials and secondary aggregate to provide a hard surface. The original farm track to be replaced was constructed as a stone road used by light weight vehicles. Over the years the road surface had degenerated due to the soft and at times saturated ground conditions and the use of heavier vehicles, which has made animal husbandry and the proper utilisation of the land difficult.
2.3 Works to construct the track have commenced but are not complete. Of the works that have taken place so far, the track levels are generally higher (from between 12mm and 1.9m) than the original permission issued by Barrow Borough Council and some sections of the track deviate east and west from the approved alignment (from between approximately 2m and 12m). Further unauthorised works have been undertaken in the form of landfilling areas immediately to the west (around 1 hectare) and east (around 0.85 hectares) of the access track. The approved scheme permitted the importation of a total of 9000 cubic metres of material to reconstruct the track. To date an estimated 22,600 cubic metres has been deposited at the site, of which an estimated 4000 cubic metres is from the farmland itself and the remainder imported from other locations.
2.4 A complaint about activities at the site was first received in August 2010. Initially these were referred to Barrow Borough Council to be dealt with, this planning authority having issued the permission for the track. Further complaints and closer examination of activities revealed, however, that as well as significantly more material being imported to the site and deposited over a wider area than permitted by the planning permission, a number of conditions precedent had not been complied with. As a consequence, Barrow Borough Council and the County Council agreed that the permission was not lawful, could not be lawfully implemented, and so the activities amounted to unauthorised waste disposal. In Page 148 November 2011, the interested parties were advised that as a consequence the entire deposit was unauthorised and should be removed, and the further deposit of material should cease until the matter had been resolved.
2.5 In December 2011, the County Council served a Planning Contravention Notice on the interested parties to try to ascertain basic facts about the site. Following a meeting on site it appeared that the importation of material had ceased, however, a further complaint (again from the same 2010 complainant) was received in January 2012 alleging the importation of further material. This was verified by a planning officer and a Temporary Stop Notice, with the effect of prohibiting the further deposit of waste at the site, was served in January 2012. Following this, the County Council was advised that a retrospective planning application to regularise the situation would be submitted, hence this application. Provided that the situation stays as it is and no further material is imported to the site, no further enforcement action will be taken pending the determination of this application.
The Proposal
2.6 This application site covers a total area of 2.96 hectares. It forms a long and narrow coastal band laid to grass for animal grazing and rearing and is part of a larger area of 21 hectares of farmland which stretches north beyond the gated boundary of this site along the coastline with an average width of 200 metres and length of 1000 metres. The only access to this land is via Bank Lane. The applicant states that a grant of planning permission would enable the proper utilisation of this site for farming purposes and also secure the release and utilisation of the remainder of the 21 hectares of farmland.
2.7 The track starts at Bank Lane and runs north over a culverted stream which bisects the site east to west at around 300 metres from the start of the track. The stream is bridged with a 900mm diameter concrete drainage pipe. The culverting of this stream was undertaken by the applicant and is unauthorised. The first 180 metres of the 500 metre track is substantially completed except for a limited amount of grading, soiling and grass seeding which is proposed either side of the track and more or less in accordance with the approved scheme. The section of the track at 180 to 300 metres (the location of the culverted stream) from the start has not been completed. It is this section of track that deviates most significantly both in its levels (higher) and alignment from the approved track. It is also this section where the most significant levels of unauthorised landfilling have taken place, mainly to the west side of the track. From 300 to 400 metres, some works to the access track have been undertaken but it is still to be constructed to its finished levels. There has also been some landfilling, again contrary to the approved scheme, mainly to the east of the access track. Beyond 400 metres, there has been no landfilling and the track has yet to be constructed.
2.8 The proposal is to raise the general ground levels of the access road above the adjacent ground levels in order to increase and improve the usable agricultural areas as well as sustain the current status of the site. The applicant proposes that the level of the track be set at 7.30 m AOD because in the event of severe flooding the finished levels would need to be over 7.05m. At the highest point at the gate entrance the ground level is 14.30 metres AOD. The levels drop to 6.82m AOD at the culverted stream, are moderately level for 140 m and then rise Page 149 sharply to the northernmost part of the site at 9.20 m AOD. The applicant states that the surface geology of this coastal fringe area can be variable, but at this particular location, the land is covered by a firm stiff clay overlying aquifers below. As a result, there is only minimal percolation of surface water provided by the topsoil surface. The applicant states that the presence of tidal conditions and streams taking attenuated water from other sites outside the application site means that there is a propensity for flooding and surface water retention.
2.9 The partially constructed access road comprises inert fill from recycling operations at its base, and it is proposed when finally constructed would comprise 225mm of consolidated recycled (secondary) crushed aggregate, finished with a minimum of 50mm road plainings. The applicant proposes that using suitable inert fill, such as that used for the access road and placed either side in adjacent areas, will enable greater permeability of the surface levels to ensure that surface water is quickly shed into the ground below.
2.10 The proposal would also involve the de-culverting of the stream, essentially the removal of a piped section from the track westwards to the remainder of the open stream in order to revert back to the original approval. This would require re-profiling a section of the landfilled area to the west as it currently overlies the culverted stream. In addition, the stream bisecting the northern part of the site would also need to be culverted.
2.11 The main elements of the proposal are as follows: to complete the construction of the access track; to de-culvert the steam that bisects the central part of the site to replicate its natural state before culverting; to re-profile, soil and seed the landfilled area to the west of the track as part of the de-culverting operations; to re-profile, soil and seed the landfilled area to the east of the track beyond the stream; to culvert the stream that bisects the northern part of the site and to restore the land either side, and to restore the site predominantly for agricultural purposes.
2.12 It is proposed that no further material would be required to be imported to or taken off the site to complete the works; that the works would take place between the hours of 8.30am to 5.30pm (Mondays to Fridays) and 9.00am to 1.00pm (Saturdays) with no working on Sundays, and that the bulk works (including excavation, re-profiling and re-opening the stream) would take 8 weeks to complete and landscaping (seeding, planting) would take approximately 4 weeks, subject to the seeding/planting season.
2.13 The proposal was accompanied by the following:
An Ecological Appraisal (September 2012) to identify any habitats, species or features of nature conservation significance; to undertake more in-depth surveys to assess the extent of any ecological risk identified as a result of the proposals, and to make recommendations to ensure compliance with the law and recognised best practice. A Ground Investigation Report (January 2013) to examine the chemical composition of the infill material that has been imported to the site for the purpose of testing for a range of potential contaminants. A Flood Risk Assessment, given that the majority of the site lies within Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3. Page 150 3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Barrow Borough Council – Planning . No comments have been received.
3.2 Barrow Borough Council – Environmental Health . Barrow Borough Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has commented on the Ground Investigation Report . The report identified 25 sampling locations (trial pits) within the site, which were consistent across the site, comprising substantially of demolition rubble, including broken brick, and concrete, timber, wire, pottery, glass and plastic, with sand and clay. 25 leachate samples were also taken. Whilst analysis of the soil samples identified elevated levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s) and the presence of Asbestos, the report concluded, that the material used for the construction of the access track and infilling of adjacent areas, poses no significant health risk.
3.3 Barrow Borough Council’s Environmental Protection Officer considers that satisfactory information is contained within the report and agrees that there are no unacceptable risks associated with the imported material. He points out, however, that his comments do not relate to whether or not the developer has complied with any Environmental Permit or Waste Exemption issued by the Environment Agency.
3.4 The Environment Agency has no objections in principle to the proposal as submitted, but raises the following issues:
Given the scale and nature of the proposals, the Flood Risk Assessment is adequate. The applicant should be fully aware of the flood risk and frequency at this location and any impact this may have on the proposals, and ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere as a result of these proposals. Although the Agency would encourage the proposed de-culverting of the stream crossing the site, the applicant should be aware that any works affecting the flow of an ordinary watercourse would require Flood Defence Consent from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), in this case Cumbria County Council, and this body will assess the adequacy of both the culverting and de-culverting works. [Responsibility for consenting works on Ordinary Watercourses transferred to Cumbria County Council as LLFA on 6 April 2012.] The applicant should ensure that the de-culverted watercourse mimics the natural drainage of the land as closely as practicable to ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere. The applicant should ensure that the works do not cause pollution to nearby watercourses. With regards to the permitting status of the site, the waste activities were covered by an exemption, but the works went beyond the tonnages and waste types permitted under the exemption. A formal caution was issued and unsuitable waste types were removed to bring the site into compliance with the exemption. The existing culvert did not receive consent from the Environment Agency. It is therefore classed as an illegal structure. The site is in a potentially vulnerable location overlying Sherwood Page 151 Sandstone, a designated Principal Aquifer and is in close proximity to the Duddon Estuary. Having reviewed the submitted documentation, the Agency has no concerns that this proposal would pose a risk to groundwater. 3.5 Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) Cumbria County Council comments that they would need to be consulted for consent to make the change to the road crossing, which would also deal with the matter of de-culverting, and suggest that the applicant makes contact before any works commence on site. They comment further that any surface water flooding would be below the level of the reconstructed road and so would be of no concern to them. 3.6 Natural England has no objections to this application, and makes the following comments:
If undertaken in accordance with details submitted, the proposal is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which the Duddon Estuary SPA and Ramsar and Morecambe Bay SAC have been classified. Natural England therefore advises that an Appropriate Assessment to assess the implications of the proposal on the site’s conservation objectives is therefore not required. Given the nature and scale of the proposals, Natural England is satisfied that the proposals would not be likely to have an adverse effect on the Duddon Estuary SSSI. With regards to effects upon protected species, Natural England notes that the proposals are likely to impact upon the European Protected Species Natterjack Toads and Great Crested Newts (GCNs). They are, however, satisfied that the mitigation measures proposed in the Ecological Appraisal would maintain the populations identified in the survey report. They further advise that a planning condition should be attached to ensure that the mitigation measures proposed in the Ecological Appraisal to protect nesting birds, amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates are implemented in full should planning permission be granted, and that a licence may be required for certain works affecting Natterjack Toads and GCNs given their status as European Protected Species. Consideration should be given by Cumbria County Council as the planning authority to other possible impacts on local sites of biodiversity and geodiversity interest, local landscape character and local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species, including Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species, and the Council should consider securing measures to enhance and conserve the biodiversity of the site. 3.7 Highways . No comments had been received.
3.8 The County Council’s Rights of Way Officer considers that there are no grounds to object to this application, as the development would not directly affect the use of any existing recorded public right of way. In response to comments by the Ramblers (see below), the Officer sates that Cumbria County Council no longer supports the Coastal Way financially and only maintains it if it happens to be on the same route as a statutory public right of way. He further comments that as far as the English Coastal Route (ECR) is concerned, this area is not included within the pilot area being considered where the ECR will almost certainly be Page 152 implemented. For this reason it has no status either nationally or otherwise in this location.
3.9 Walney Airport BAE Systems Marine Ltd – Walney Airfield has no objections subject to the following assumptions being confirmed:
That the nature of the work would be at ground level not involving the use of cranes type vehicles/machinery and so should increase the risk to aircraft climbing or ascending. They note that the land is on the approach of one of their most frequently used runways at Walney, That scavenging birds may be attracted to the items being buried, but the waste material is listed as ‘Recycled Inert’, so they assume that this material would not be a food source for birds. They note that any increase in the number of birds at the site close to the aerodrome tends to lead to a similar increase in the risk of aircraft bird strike. That disturbing or breaking the surface could attract birds that feed on slugs, worms etc disturbed by the excavation, however, the work would be of short duration and on a relatively small scale and so would have a negligible impact in terms of increasing attraction to birds 3.10 The Ramblers strongly object to the application and make the following comments:
Group members have used the rights of way adjacent to the application site and one of these is used as the Cumbrian Coastal Way (CCW). The CCW at this section is given to tidal inundation and walkers at times use the edge of the foreshore which would provide limited views into the site. When walking northwards along the CCW this is the first stretch of open country for the path and any development that would incrementally reduce this green corridor would be objectionable on amenity grounds. The main concern is the potential impacts upon the future development of the English Coastal Route (ECR), which the Ramblers would expect would be a material planning consideration in considering this application. This is a reference to the England Coast Path, a scheme approved by the Secretary of State to create a National Trail around all England’s open coast. The Ramblers consider that the area of coastal strip between Scarth Bight and Barrow Slag Bank is a primary area of search for the path. The Ramblers consider that the culverting of the stream and the unknown drainage implications of the proposal could potentially make the already wet conditions along the coastal strip between the application site and the shore more problematic and so threaten the delivery of government policy on the development of the ECR. 3.11 If the County Council is minded to approve the proposals, however, the Ramblers would ask that planning gain is sought. They suggest that the developer provides an onshore, field edge route for the current CCW and a route potentially suitable for the ECR, which would take into account any sensitive ecological issues and encompasses the full length of the land holdings beside Walney Channel.
Page 153 3.12 The Local Member, Mr William (Bill) McEwan, has been notified of the application.
3.13 One representation has been received which raises concerns about the excessive volumes and the nature of the materials that have been deposited at the site. The representee states that the volumes are vastly greater than the original application; that the waste deposited is not recycled to the aggregates protocol, and the Contamination Report accompanying the application shows that there is an element of active waste, which if deposited correctly into a landfill site, would have been subject to a considerable amount of landfill tax payable to HMRC. The representee states that the applicant therefore appears to have ignored the correct processes and is now seeking forgiveness rather than the original permission which would surely not have been granted. The representee concludes that if this application is approved the door will be opened for other companies to do the same thing as a precedent will have been set that this is acceptable.
4.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT
4.1 This is a retrospective application to regularise the deposit of inert waste material for the construction of an access track and for landfilling and land raising for the purpose of improving access to and the use of land for agriculture.
4.2 One of the main planning issues to consider is whether the application is acceptable in principle. The principle of the need for the access track to serve agricultural land was accepted by Barrow Borough Council in 2009 and so the acceptability of this element of the proposal cannot be disputed. A fundamental consideration is therefore whether the additional landfilling and landraising works over and above the proposal to construct the access road is acceptable. Essential to this decision is consideration of the purpose of the development - essentially to make better use of agricultural land and to secure access to further agricultural land adjoining the application site – and so whether there is a need for this development.
4.3 It should be noted that this is not a proposal for an inert waste landfill site. Policies in the Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework (CMWDF) relating to this type of development proposal are therefore not relevant to the consideration of this proposal. It is considered that as the land occupies by the site is generally poorly drained due to the underlying geology, and the landraising works already undertaken on parts of the site have improved site drainage and made it more usable for agricultural purposes, the applicant has demonstrated a reasonably robust justification for this element of the development.
4.4 As the need for the development has been generally accepted, it is necessary to consider the main impacts of this proposal. Central to this is the need to consider the environmental implications of leaving the already imported material on site where it as, as compared with taking it off site if planning permission were to be refused. This is done with reference to a number of policies contained in the CMWDF which are of relevance, dealing with matters such as traffic impacts, biodiversity, landscape, visual and hydrological impacts. These are dealt with in turn as follows: Page 154 Impacts on Hydrology 4.5 A culverted stream bisects east to west the central part of the site and a further stream in the northern part of the site, which joins a stream along the eastern site boundary, runs south and then west across this part of the site. These discharge into the sea on the western boundary and serve to discharge surface water from adjacent land users to the east, including the Kimberly Clark factory.
4.6 The area is generally subject to a flood risk of 0.1% (1 in 1000 year flood risk – Zone 2) with the exception of the part of the site to the north of the culverted stream, which lies in Flood Risk Zone 3, where the risk is generally between 1.3% (1 in 75 year) and 0.5% (1 in 200 year), and in some parts the risk of surface water flooding is as high as a 1 in 30 year risk. This area is therefore considered high risk. The Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application states that the presence of tidal conditions and streams taking attenuated water from other sites means that there is a propensity for potential flooding and surface water retention at low points, and that localised flooding occurs during periods of heavy rainfall. Given this, the potential impacts of the proposal on adjacent land uses and users must be considered as well as the impact upon the proposed development itself.
4.7 It would therefore be essential that the proposed works would not exacerbate drainage problems elsewhere on the site itself or on land adjacent to it. The Flood Risk Assessment concludes that there would be no increased risk of flooding on site or elsewhere as a result of the completion of the proposed works and because the site is farmland the consequences of flooding on the land itself would be minimal.
4.8 The proposal to remove a substantial section of the culvert containing the stream in the central part of the site and re-instate the watercourse as an open stream is welcomed by the Environment Agency as culverting generally increases the risk of flooding both down and upstream of culverted channel. The proposal to de-culvert the substantial section of watercourse immediately to the west of the access track to re-create a ‘natural’ channel should therefore have the effect of reducing flood risk as it would, as reiterated by the applicant, reduce constriction of surface water flow. To permit the application and enable these works to take place would therefore clearly reduce the risk of flooding both up and down stream of the site and be more beneficial than a refusal which would retain this extensively culverted watercourse.
4.9 An application for Flood Defence Consent to permit the changes to the culvert and the proposed de-culverting would need to be submitted to Cumbria County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority. This would need to demonstrate that the culvert is appropriately sized and that the proposals to de-culvert are acceptable in order to receive a permit. A planning condition is also recommended which would require the details of the de-culverting to be approved prior to implementation to ensure that this would be acceptable in general planning terms, taking landscape, visual and biodiversity impacts into account.. The intention of the planning condition would be to ensure the restoration of a natural watercourse.
4.10 The stream bisecting the northern part of the site would need to be culverted to enable the proposed access track to cross this part of the site. This would apply Page 155 only to a very small section of the stream. The applicant proposes that the remainder of the stream would be left open to re-create as natural a watercourse as possible. A planning condition is recommended to ensure that details of the culverting and proposed restoration of this part of the site, including supporting the remainder of the ditch, is acceptable and appropriate. As explained above, these works would also need to be approved by the Environment Agency. The works proposed to be undertaken in this part of the site should have a negligible impact on flood risk.
4.11 In the light of the above proposals and the findings of the Flood Risk Assessment, it is considered that the development would be compatible with the requirements of Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework Generic Development Control Policy DC13 as it is considered that the proposal would not increase flood risk elsewhere and would, with the de-culverting proposals, reduce flood risk overall.
4.12 The site lies in a potentially vulnerable location as regards potential impacts upon groundwater. Published geological mapping indicate that the northern part of the site is underlain by sand and gravel of marine origin. The superficial deposit is underlain by the Sherwood Sandstone, designated as a Principal Aquifer and the site is in close proximity to the Duddon Esturay, a designated SSSI.
4.13 The Environment Agency has reviewed the Ground Investigation Report (Thomas Consulting; January 2013) submitted with the application. The report states that 28 trial pits were excavated on site; fill material was encountered in 25 sampling locations, and groundwater ingress was encountered in 8 trial pits. The nature of the fill material was reported to include bricks, concrete, timber, wire, pottery, glass, and plastics with sand and clay. The deepest fill was recorded at 3.2 metres. Soil samples were analysed and leachability tests conducted and results were compared to UK Drinking Water Standards where available. Elevated PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) were recorded, thought to be associated with tarmac fragments, in 10 of the samples and the presence of Asbestos in four of the samples. PAH’s in the form of B(a)P and D(ah)A are considered to be carcinogens and the most toxic of PAH’s. however, it was considered that this was associated with tarmac fragments in made ground rather than with pockets of mobile contamination. Taking these findings into account, and the fact that excess unsuitable wastes have been removed to bring the site into compliance with the U1 exemption (see Environment Agency’s response in Section 3 of this report), the Environment Agency has no concerns that the development would pose a risk to groundwater.
Impacts on Ecology 4.14 The site is directly adjacent to an area of salt marsh leading to intertidal mud which forms part of the Duddon Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This SSSI is part of the Duddon Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site and the Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC). North Walney National Nature Reserve lies on the mud and sand further west. The edge of the Sowerby Woods County Wildlife Site abuts the north east boundary of the application site. There is potential for Natterjack Toads and Great Crested Newts (European Protected Species) to be present on the site as well as reptiles, particularly Common Lizard.
Page 156 4.15 Natural England advises that the works as proposed would not be likely to adversely impact upon the Morecambe Bay and Duddon designations and consider that the mitigation measures proposed in the Ecological Appraisal would be adequate in maintaining the local populations of Natterjack Toads and Great Crested Newts, and provide protection for the other species interests at the site. The County Ecologist considers that these proposed mitigation measures are lacking in detail and that in order for this material consideration to be adequately addressed, further detail on methods and timings of the survey assessments are required, and that this information should be required by way of a planning condition for approval prior to the resumption of any operations on site. The optimum time for such surveys to be carried out would be between April and June. Complying with this condition would then ensure compliance with CMWDF Core Strategy Policy 4 which requires that development would not have an unacceptable impact upon these protected species.
4.16 It is also proposed that a further planning condition be attached to any approval to require the implementation of measures to restore and enhance the local habitats, including provision for reptiles, butterflies and other invertebrates; mitigation measures for the loss of marshy grassland and additional hedgerow planting. These measures would satisfy the requirements of CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC 10, and be consistent with NPPF Paragraph 118, which require proposals to enhance, restore or add to locally important biodiversity assets. Planning conditions are also required to ensure the restoration of the site for a nature conservation and agricultural afteruse, and subsequent aftercare, once works have been completed, in accordance with the requirements of CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC 16.
Landscape and Visual Impacts 4.17 The site is located within the area described by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (Cumbria County Council; March 2011) as Sub- type 5b Low Farmland. This is generally characterised by undulating and rolling topography dominated by intensively farmed agricultural pasture. The coastal strip at this particular location is transitional in character with a strong industrial influence. Having considered the impacts of the development to date as compared with those of the remaining proposed works, it is concluded that the impacts of the proposals upon the broader landscape character in this location would be negligible, compatible and in conformity with CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC12.
4.18 In terms of visual impacts and impacts upon potential visual receptors, the closest residential properties are the conversions at the former Sowerby Lodge Farm, approximately 80 m to the south of the site, and rights of way used as the Cumbria Coastal Way (CCW) run north-south on the mud and sand adjacent to the site. There is limited visibility of the site from the dwellings at Sowerby Lodge and the majority of the site is screened from the public footpaths to the west. Nevertheless, the applicant has agreed to implement measures to modify the impact and scale of the development; for example, by reducing the height of the existing initial 180 metres of track to better assimilate into the rural setting and thereby be less visually intrusive. The proposals have been amended to this effect.
Page 157 Impacts on Residential Amenity 4.19 The impacts of the proposed remaining works as compared to the impacts of the works that would be required to return the site to its original state should planning permission be refused, must be considered in the context of residential amenity, particularly with regards to issues of noise and dust.
4.20 The applicant has confirmed that in order to complete the proposed works, no further material would be required to be either imported to or exported from the site. The activities required to complete the works as proposed would therefore be far less disruptive to residents that if the application were to be refused and all imported material removed from the site. Nevertheless, a number of planning conditions are recommended in order to minimise any adverse impacts upon residential amenity. These include conditions to control working hours, to control noise, dust and the deposition of material from the site on the public highway, all necessary to comply with the requirements of CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC 2, which seeks to protect general amenity. No representations have been received from residents of the closest residential properties at Sowerby Lodge.
Impacts from Potential Contamination 4.21 Another issue that must be considered is the potential risk to human health caused by the unauthorised deposit of waste at the site. The Ground Investigation Report submitted with the application and referred to above revealed that scientific analysis of the 25 soil samples taken from various locations across the site identified elevated levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s) (ie. Benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) and Dibenzo(ah)anthracene (D(ah)A)), thought to be associated with tarmac fragments, in 10 of the samples and the presence of Asbestos in four of the samples. PAH’s in the form of B(a)P and D(ah)A are considered to be carcinogens and the most toxic of PAH’s.
4.22 The report concluded, however, that as the PAH levels found were only marginally greater than the Generic Assessment Values; that no elevated levels of analytes were found in the 25 leachate samples when compared to the UK Drinking Water Standard, and due to the location and depth of asbestos samples found, the material used for the construction of the access track and infilling of adjacent areas, poses no significant health risk given the current site usage, and subject to the material remaining undisturbed.
4.23 Barrow Borough Council’s Environmental Health Officer accepts the information contained within this report. They advise that if the proposed development would require any disturbance to asbestos on the site then specialist advice would need to be sought. A planning condition is proposed to address this potential concern. Should planning permission be refused and the material required to be removed, Environmental Health would assume that the potential risk to the environment and human health, from for example, dust inhalation or ground or surface water contamination, would increase. It is concluded therefore that leaving the material in situ would minimise any risk.
Page 158 Impacts of Traffic 4.24 The applicant has confirmed that in order to complete the works proposed, there would be no requirement to import any further inert waste material to achieve the proposed levels or soils to restore the site, or to take any excess material off site. Permitting the works to be completed would therefore clearly generate significantly less traffic than if planning permission were to be refused and the material removed from site. There would, however, be some traffic generation associated with completing the works. Initially this would involve delivering plant to site which would happen at the very beginning and end of the project. The remainder would entail light traffic from the operators’ personal vehicles which the applicant anticipates would be in the order of 5 to 10 movements per day.
4.25 It is concluded that the traffic associated with the completion of the proposed works would not have unacceptable impacts upon the convenience of other road users or on community amenity. A planning condition is also recommended to ensure that mud or other debris would not be deposited on the public highway. It is therefore considered that the proposals comply with CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC 1.
Impacts on Public Rights of Way 4.26 The potential impacts of the development upon the use of the Cumbria Coastal Way and specifically in relation to the issues raised by the Ramblers must be considered. The County Council’s Rights of Way Officer’s comments, provided in Section 3 of this report, clearly indicate that the issues raised by the Ramblers are of little relevance to the determination of this application. The development would not impact upon any existing rights of way and as this area has not been selected for the provision of the English Coastal Route (ECR), the route has no status in this location, either national or otherwise. The potential impacts this development may have on it cannot therefore be taken into account in determining this planning application.
Human Rights Act 1998 4.27 The proposal will have a limited impact on the residential and environmental amenity of the area. Any impacts on the rights of local property owners to a private and family life and peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1) are minimal and proportionate to the wider social and economic interests of the community.
Page 159 Conclusion
4.28 Whilst it must be acknowledged that this proposal is part retrospective in that some of the works have already been carried out, the above planning assessment demonstrates that it is acceptable in principal. Furthermore, the potential impacts of approving this application to allow completion of the development would be comparatively less environmentally damaging to issuing a refusal which would necessitate the removal of the imported material from the site and site remediation, with the consequent inconvenience to and negative impacts upon nearby residents and road users.
4.29 It is considered that the revised scheme, together with the recommended planning conditions, should ensure that the impacts of completing the development, over the relatively short period required, will be minimal, and that planning permission should therefore be granted.
Paul Feehily Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability
Contact Rachel Brophy , Kendal, Tel: 01539 713413 ; Email: [email protected] Background Papers Planning Application File Reference No. 6/13/9001 Enforcement File Reference No. EN11 - 6002
Electoral Division Identification Ormsgill ED - Mr McEwan
Page 160 Appendix 1 Ref No. 6/13/9001 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 18 October 2013
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010
Summary of Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission
1 This application has been determined in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts, in the context of national planning policy guidance and the relevant development plan policies.
2 The key development plan policies taken into account by the County Council before granting permission were as follows:
Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework (CMWDF)
Core Strategy 2009-2020 (Adopted April 2009) Policy CS 4 - Environmental Assets Minerals and waste management developments should aim to:
protect, maintain and enhance overall quality of life and the natural, historic and other distinctive features that contribute to the environment of Cumbria and to the character of its landscapes and places. improve the settings of the features, improve the linkages between them and buffer zones around them, where this is appropriate; realise the opportunities for expanding and increasing environmental resources, including adapting and mitigating for climate change.
Areas and features identified to be of international or national importance .
Planning application proposals within these, or that could affect them, must demonstrate that they comply with the relevant national policies as set out in Planning Policy Statements. Wherever practicable, they should also demonstrate that they would enhance the environmental assets.
Environmental assets not protected by national or European legislation
Planning permission will not be granted for development that would have an unacceptable impact on these environmental assets, on its own or in combination with other developments, unless:-
it is demonstrated that there is an overriding need for the development, and that it cannot reasonably be located on any alternative site that would result in less or no harm, and then, that the effects can be adequately mitigated, or if not,
Page 161 that the effects can be adequately and realistically compensated for through offsetting actions.
All proposals would also be expected to demonstrate that they include reasonable measures to secure the opportunities that they present for enhancing Cumbria's environmental assets.
Guidance on implementing parts of this policy will be provided by the Landscape Character and Highway Design Guidance Documents and by the Cumbria Biodiversity Evidence Base .
Generic Development Control Policies 2009-2020 (Adopted April 2009) Policy DC1 – Traffic and Transport Proposals for minerals and waste developments should be located where they:
a. are well related to the strategic route network as defined in the Local Transport Plan, and/or b. have potential for rail or sea transport and sustainable travel to work, and c. are located to minimise operational "minerals and waste road miles".
Mineral developments that are not located as above may be permitted if:
they do not have unacceptable impacts on highway safety and fabric, the convenience of other road users and on community amenity, where an appropriate standard of access and traffic routing can be provided, and appropriate mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts are provided.
Policy DC 2 - General Criteria Minerals and Waste proposals must, where appropriate, demonstrate that: a. noise levels, blast vibration and air over-pressure levels would be within acceptable limits, b. there will be no significant degradation of air quality (from dust and emissions), c. public rights of way or concessionary paths are not adversely affected, or if this is not possible, either temporary or permanent alternative provision is made, d. carbon emissions from buildings, plant and transport have been minimised, e. issues of ground stability have been addressed.
Considerations will include: the proximity of sensitive receptors, including impacts on surrounding land uses, and protected species, how residual and/or mineral wastes will be managed, the extent to which adverse effects can be controlled through sensitive siting and design, or visual or acoustic screening, the use of appropriate and well maintained and managed equipment, phasing and duration of working, progressive restoration, hours of operations,
Page 162 appropriate routes and volumes of traffic, and other mitigation measures.
Policy DC 10 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity Proposals for minerals and waste developments that would have impacts on locally important biodiversity and geological conservation assets, as defined in the Core Strategy, will be required to identify their likely impacts on, and also their potential to enhance, restore or add to these resources, and to functional ecological and green infrastructure networks. Enhancement measures should contribute to national, regional and local biodiversity and geodiversity objectives and targets, and to functional ecological and green infrastructure networks.
Proposals for developments within, or affecting the features or settings of such resources, should demonstrate that:
a. the need for, and benefits of, the development and the reasons for locating the development in its proposed location and that alternatives have been considered. b. appropriate measures to mitigate any adverse effects (direct, indirect and cumulative) have been identified and secured, and advantage has been taken of opportunities to incorporate beneficial biodiversity and geological conservation features, or c. where adverse impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated for, that appropriate compensatory measures have been identified and secured, and d. that all mitigation, enhancement or compensatory measures are compatible with the characteristics of, and features within, Cumbria.
Policy DC 12 - Landscape Proposals for development should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria's landscapes and should:
a. avoid significant adverse impacts on the natural and historic landscape, b. use Landscape Character Assessment to assess the capacity of landscapes to accept development, to inform the appropriate scale and character of such development, and guide restoration where development is permitted, c. in appropriate cases use the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment to assess and integrate these issues into the development process, d. ensure that development proposals consider the effects on: locally distinctive natural or built features; scale in relation to landscape features; public access and community value of the landscape; historic patterns and attributes; and openness, remoteness and tranquillity, e. ensure high quality design of modern waste facilities to minimise their impact on the landscape, or views from sensitive areas, and to contribute to the built environment, f. direct minerals and waste developments to less sensitive locations, wherever this is possible, and ensure that sensitive siting and high quality design prevent significant adverse impacts on the principal local characteristics of the landscape including views from, and the setting of, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Heritage Coast or National Parks.
Page 163 Policy DC 13 – Flood Risk All proposed minerals and waste management developments should be located using the sequential tests in Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and flood risk. Developments should be located, wherever possible, in areas with the lowest probability of flooding (Zone 1). Where there is no reasonably available site in Flood Zone 1 a flood risk assessment will be required and account must be taken of the flood vulnerability of the development:-
sand and gravel workings are water-compatible development and may be appropriate in the functional flood plain (Zone 3b). sewage transmission infrastructure and pumping stations are water- compatible development and may be appropriate in the functional flood plain (Zone 3b). other mineral workings and processing may be appropriate in areas of high probability (Zone 3a). waste treatment facilities (except landfill and for hazardous wastes) may be appropriate in areas of high probability. sewage treatment plants may be appropriate in areas of high probability (if adequate pollution control measures are in place) landfills and sites used for hazardous waste management facilities may be appropriate in areas of medium probability (Zone 2).
Exceptions to the policy will only be permitted if:-
a. it is demonstrated that the wider sustainability benefits of the development outweigh the flood risk and contribute to sustainability development, or b. development is on developable brownfield land or there are no reasonable alternative sites on developable brownfield land; and, c. flood risk assessment demonstrates the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.
Policy DC 14 – The Water Environment Planning permission will only be granted for developments that would have no unacceptable quantitative or qualitative adverse effects on the water environment, including surface waters and groundwater resources. Proposals that minimise water use and include sustainable water management will be favoured.
Policy DC 15 – Protection of Soil Resources Proposals for minerals and waste development will be required to demonstrate that:
a. soil resources are protected and maintained in viable condition to be used in restoration of the site, or b. where developments are permanent and restoration is not envisaged, that soil resources are used effectively on undeveloped areas of the site, or used appropriately on other suitable sites.
Page 164 Policy DC 16 - Afteruse and Restoration Proposals for minerals extraction, or for temporary waste facilities such as landfill, should be accompanied by detailed proposals for restoration including proposals for appropriate afteruse, financial provision and long term management where necessary. Restoration and enhancement measures should maximise their contributions to national, regional and local biodiversity objectives and targets. In all cases restoration schemes must demonstrate that the land is stable and that the risk of future collapse of any mineworkings has been minimised.
After-uses that enhance biodiversity and the environment, conserve soil resources, conserve and enhance the historic environment, increase public access, minimise the impacts of global warming, and are appropriate for the landscape character of the area will be encouraged. These could include: nature conservation, agriculture, leisure and recreation, and woodland,
Where sites accord with other policies, an alternative or mixed afteruse that would support long term management, farm diversification, renewable energy schemes, tourism, or employment land may be acceptable.
All proposals must demonstrate that:
a. for agricultural, forestry and amenity afteruses there is an aftercare management programme of at least 5 years, but longer where required to ensure that the restoration scheme is established, b. the restoration is appropriate for the landscape character and wildlife interest of the area, and measures to protect, restore and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity conservation features are practical, of a high quality appropriate to the area and secure their long term safeguarding and maintenance, c. restoration will be completed within a reasonable timescale and is progressive as far as practicable, d. provision for the likely financial and material budgets for the agreed restoration, aftercare and afteruse will be made during the operational life of the site. e. restoration will be undertaken using industry best practice.
Peat workings should be restored to peat regeneration wherever possible.
The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) is also a material consideration, and has been taken into account in this report with particular reference to Paragraph 14 which states that: ‘At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development , which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.’
3 In summary, the reasons for granting permission are that the County Council is of the opinion that the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan, there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made otherwise and with the planning conditions included in
Page 165 the notice of planning consent, any harm would reasonably by mitigated. Furthermore, any potential harm to interests of acknowledged importance is likely to be negligible and would be outweighed by the benefits of the development.
Page 166 Appendix 2 Ref No. 6/13/9001 Development Control and Regulation Committee – 18 October 2013
Proposed Conditions
Approved Scheme 1. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved documents, hereinafter referr ed to as the approved scheme. The approved scheme shall comprise the following:
a. The submitted Application Form, dated 28 May 2012; b. The following Plans: Drawings No 11233/01.01 Rev A & No 11233/01.02 Rev A - Existing Site Levels - April 2012; Drawings No 11233/02.01 Rev B & No 11233/02.02 Rev B - Proposed Site Levels; Drawings No 11233/04.01 Rev B, No 11233/04.02 Rev C, No 11233/04.03 Rev C, No 11233/04.04 Rev D, No 11233/04.05 Rev C, No 11233/04.06 Rev B, No 11233/04.07 Rev B, Cross Sections; Drawings No 11233/03.01 Rev B, No 11233/03.02 Rev B, No 11233/03.03 Rev B, No 11233/03.04 Rev B, No 11233/03.05 Rev B, No 11233/03.06 Rev B, Longitudinal Sections; Drawing No 11233/07, dated 2 September 2013 - The Location Plan; Drawings No 11233/06, dated 29 May 2012 - Construction Details; Drawing No 11233/06, dated 29 May 2012 - Test Hole Locations; Drawings No 11233/08.01 Rev A and No 11233/08.02 Rev A, dated 2 September 2013 - Proposed Cut/Fill Plan View; c. The Design and Access Statement and Annex, dated 28 May 2012; d. The Addendum to Design and Access Statement, dated September 2013; e. The Flood Risk Assessment by M & P Gadsden Consulting Engineers Ltd; f. The Ecological Appraisal by Envirotech Ecological Consultants, dated September 2012; g. The Groun d Investigation Report by Thomas Consulting, dated 3 January 2013; h. The Cut and Fill Schedule, dated September 2013; i. The details or schemes approved in relation to conditions attached to this permission, and j. This Decision Notice. Reason: To avoid confusion as to what comprises the approved scheme and ensure the development is carried out to an approved appropriate standard.
Page 167 2. There shall be no further importation of waste materials to complete the development hereby permitted. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity, in accordance with CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC 2.
Time Limit for Compliance 3. The operations hereby permitted, including all planting and seeding, shall be completed within 18 months of the date of this permission, by which time the site shall be fully restored in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To secure the proper restoration of the site, in accordance with Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework (CMWDF) Generic Development Control Policy DC16.
Hours of Operation 4. No operations shall be carried out on the site outside the following times: 08.30 to 17.30 hours on Mondays to Fridays; 09.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays. No operations shall take place on Sundays or Ban k or Public Holidays.
Reason: To ensure that no operations hereby permitted take place outside normal working hours, which would lead to an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of the area, in accordance with CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC 2.
Approved Operations 5. There shall be no disturbance to or movement of asbestos around the site until specialist advice has been sought as to how this should be managed. Any recommendations made shall then be implemented in full. Reason: To minimise the potential for airborne or waterborne contamination, and thereby any risk to humans and the environment, in accordance with CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC 14.
6. Prior to the resumption of engineering operations, details of the phasing of the proposed remaining engineering works to be undertaken on site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. Once approved, the operations shall be implemented in accordance with the phasing programme. Reason: To assist with the monitoring of the site in order to ensure compliance with the approved scheme
Page 168 Control of Dust 7. Prior to the resumption of engineering operations, measures to ensure that vehicles do not give rise to the deposit of mud, dust or other debris on the public highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. Once approved, the measures shall be implemented in full prior to the resumption of operations and maintained for the duration of operations. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. In accordance with CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC 1.
8. Prior to the resumption of engineering works, measures to minimise the emission of dust from the development shall be submitted to the Local Pla nning Authority for written approval. Once approved, the measures shall be implemented in full prior to the resumption of operations and maintained for the duration of operations Reason: To safeguard local amenity by ensuring that dust does not constitute a nuisance outside the boundaries of the site, in accordance with CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC 2.
Control of Noise 9. All plant, vehicles and machinery operated within the site shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers- specifications at all times, and shall be fitted with and use effective silencers. Reason: To safeguard local amenity by ensuring that the noise generated is minimised and does not cause a nuisance outside the boundaries of the site, in accordance with CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC 2.
10. No reversing alarm systems fitted to plant, machinery or vehicles operated on the site shall be used unless they are of a type agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to their use. Reason: To safeguard local amenity by ensuring that the noise generated is minimised and does not cause a nuisance outside the boundaries of the site, in accordance with CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC 2.
Topographic Survey 11. Upon completion of the cutting and filling operations, but prior to the spreading of soils, a topographic survey shall be undertaken to demonstrate compliance with the approved levels. This survey shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within two weeks of completion. Any material recorded above the approved ground level shall be removed from the site. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.
Page 169 Ecology 12. Prior to the resumption of engineering operations, full details of the method statement and scheduling of the additional assessments for Natterjack Toads, Great Crested Newts and reptiles, referred to in Section 7 of the Ecological Appraisal (Envirotech; September 2012), shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. This shall include reference to the survey work being undertaken at optimal times. Once approved, the measures shall be implemented in full. All mitigation measures proposed in Section 7 of the Ecological Appraisal shall also be implemented in full. Reason: To ensure the protection of European Protected and other Species and birds, in accordance with CMWDF Core Strategy Policy 4.
13. Prior to the resumption of engineering operations, details of a Habitat Restoration and Enhancement scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The scheme shall include proposals to:
13.1 Provide enhancements for reptiles, butterflies and other invertebrates through the creation of habitat/hibernacula; 13.2 Provide mitigation for the loss of marshy grassland, and 13.3 Provide additional hedgerow planting, to include a section at the western end of the culverted stream at chainage 300 on Drawing No. 11233/02.01 Rev C, and along the south eastern boundary of the site.
Once approved, the scheme shall be implemented in full.
Reason: To restore and enhance biodiversity, in accordance with CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC10 and Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, March 2012).
Safeguarding of Watercourses and Drainage 14. Prior to the resumption of engineering operations, a detailed scheme for the de-culverting and reinstatement of the watercourse at chainage 300 on Drawing No. 11233/02.01 Rev C, sh all be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The scheme shall include details of the route, dimensions, levels and landscape and vegetation proposals for the adjacent stream embankments as well as a method statement for the remov al of the culvert and the creation of an open watercourse. Once approved, the scheme shall be implemented in full. Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding through the removal of the culvert, to contribute to enhancing the biodiversity of the restored site, and to improve the biological and chemical quality of the water environment by restoring an open watercourse, in accordance with CMWDF Generic Development Control Policies DC13 and DC10.
Page 170 15. Prior to the resumption of engineering operations, a detailed scheme for the culverting and reinstatement of the stream between chainage 420 and 500 on Drawing No 11233/02.02, Rev C, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The scheme shall include details of the route, levels and landscape and vegetation proposals for the adjacent land, and a method statement for the protection of the watercourse during culverting operations. Once approved, the scheme shall be implemented in full Reason: To contribute to enhancing the biodiversity of the restored site, in accordance with CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC10.
Soil Resource Management 16. The stripping, movement and respreading of soils shall be restricted to occasions when the soil is in a suitable dry and friable condition and the ground is sufficiently dry to allow the passage of heavy vehicles and machinery over it without damage to the soils and topsoil can be separated from the subsoil without difficulty. Reason: To safeguard soil resources in accordance with Policy DC 15 of the CMWDF.
17. All topsoil and subsoil shall be retained on the site and none shall be sold off or removed from the site. Reason: To safeguard soil resources in accordance with Policy DC 15 of the CMWDF.
Restoration and Aftercare 18. Prior to the resumption of engineering operations, a detailed scheme for the restoration of the site to an agricultural and nature conservation afteruse shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the final proposed contours, details of phasing; storage of soils and soil handling techniques; drainage works; the seed mix and method of seeding; type of hedgerow shrubs to be planted and method of planting, and fencing and other protective measur es. Once approved, the scheme shall be implemented in full Reason: To secure the proper restoration of the site, in accordance with CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC 16.
19. The site shall be restored to an agricultural and nature conservation afteruse as agreed in the detailed restoration scheme. The aftercare requirements shall be carried out for a period of five years from the April following the completion of restoration operations. Reason: To secure the proper aftercare of the restored land, in accordance with CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC 16.
Page 171 20. At least once each year during the aftercare period there shall be a formal review, under the provisions of Section 72(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to consider the operations which have taken place and to agree a programme of management for the coming year which shall be adhered to by the operator. The parties to be invited to this review shall include the Local Planning Authority, owners and occupiers of the land, Natural England and Cumbria Wildlife Trust. At least two weeks before the date of each review, the operator shall provide all people attending the meeting with a record of the management and operations carried out during the period covered by th e review and a proposed programme of management for the coming year. Reason: To secure the proper aftercare of the restored land, in accordance with CMWDF Generic Development Control Policy DC 16.
Environmental Clerk of Works 21. Prior to the resumption of engineering operations, the developer shall, at their own expense, appoint an Environmental Clerk of Works to oversee all environmental requirements during on site operations. Once appointed the developer shall notify the Local Planning Authority of the name and contact details of the person appointed. The developer and the appointed Environmental Clerk of Works shall be responsible for ensuring that the proposals are implemented in accordance with the approved plans and the detailed schemes submi tted and approved in accordance with the planning conditions. Reason: To ensure that the operations are completed in accordance with the approved scheme.
Page 172 Agenda Item 8
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & REGULATION COMMITTEE
Meeting Date: 18 October 2013 From: Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability
APPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS NOTE: These are applications/consultations that have been recently determined by Assistant Director of Planning and Sustainability in accordance with their schemes of delegation. Case Officer Contact Details are provided in the Footnote at the end/rear of the Agenda Authority Proposal / Date Decision Area./ Site Location / Received / & Date - Ref. No. / (Case Officer) - Type Applicant -
Carlisle
1/13/9019 Change of use from Business (office) to a day centre - Internal 07.08.13 Granted Cumbria refurbishment to parts of existing building to provide day services 02.10.13 County for adults. Centre 47, 47 Nelson Street, Carlisle, CA2 5NE Council (ELL)
Allerdale
Nil
Eden
Nil
Copeland
4/13/9009 Change of use from a Household Waste Recycling Centre 03.09.13 Granted Cumbria Fire (HWRC) to a Fire and Rescue Service Training Facility, 04.10.13 & Rescue Yeathouse Quarry, Yeathouse, Frizington, CA26 3QR Service (JP)
South Lakeland
Nil
Barrow
Nil
Page 173 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 174 Agenda Item 9
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & REGULATION COMMITTEE
Meeting Date: 18 October 2013 From: Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability
APPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS PROPOSED TO BE DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
NOTE: These are applications/consultations that have been submitted to the County Council but are not yet ready/appropriate for determination under delegated powers and/or have been recently withdrawn or determined as invalid, or not requiring planning permission, etc. Case Officer Contact Details are provided in the Footnote at the end/rear of the Agenda
Authority Area/ Proposal / Date Notes / Ref. No. / Site Location / Received / Additional Applicant (Case Officer) Registered Informatio n
Carlisle
1/13/9021 Additional extension to the permitted Materials Recycling 12.09.13 Cumbria Waste Facility Building. Hespin Wood Landfill Site, Todhills, Carlisle, Management CA6 4BJ (MM)
1/13/9022 Single storey extension to provide meeting/resource area. 26.09.13 Cumbria Wreay C of E School, Wreay, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA4 0RL County Council (EP)
Allerdale
2/13/9009 To move inert material from Site A, re-grade site B and the 14.08.13 Thompson access track in part and erect new boundary treatments. This Plant Hire Ltd will allow an existing access gate to be re-opened to facilitate the removal of timber from the plantation at Flimby Great Wood. This would reduce the amount of traffic going down the track/Pennygill Lane. Land to the East of, Risehow Industrial Estate, Flimby, Maryport, Cumbria, CA15 8PD (JP)
2/13/9010 Proposed demolition of disused former fire station and 13.09.13 Cumbria associated derelict buildings. Workington Fire Station, King County Council Street, Workington, Cumbria, CA14 4DH (JP)
2/13/9011 Conservation Area Consent for demolition of former workington 19.09.13 Cumbria fire station and 4 no associated derelict buildings / grubbing up County Council and removal of existing hardstandings etc. Provision of new 1.8m high black paladin perimeter fencing; formation of 4 no new off street parking bays, widening of an existing private pedestrian footpath and installation of 3 no 5m high street lighting columns, Workington Fire Station, King Street, Workington, Cumbria, CA14 4DH (JP)
Eden
3/13/9011 Application for a Certificate of Lawful Development for the 02.10.13 Mr Keith existing use of the site for the storage and hire of skips, Liverick recycling of waste materials, waste recovery and transfer of waste, Old Foundry Site, Station Road, Alston, CA9 3HZ. (EP)
Page 175 Copeland
4/13/9010 2 no. new motor control kiosks. Cleator Wastewater Treatment 30.09.13 United Utilities Works, Main Road, Cleator, Whitehaven, Cumbria (EP)
South Lakeland
Nil
Barrow
Nil
Page 176 Agenda Item 10
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & REGULATION COMMITTEE
Meeting Date: 18 October 2013 From: Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability
APPLICATIONS/CONSULTATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AT FUTURE MEETINGS NOTE: These are applications/consultations that have been submitted to the County Council but are not yet ready/appropriate for presentation to the Committee and/or have been recently withdrawn or determined as invalid, or not requiring planning permission, etc. Case Officer Contact Details are provided in the Footnote, following this list.
Authority Area/ Proposal / Date Notes / Ref. No. / Site Location / Received / Additional Applicant - (Case Officer) - Registered Information
Carlisle
1/13/9023 (i) The change of use of land from active mineral operation, 03.10.13 EIA Application Natural agricultural grazing land or no formal use to use as a nature England reserve for the restoration of degraded peat to favourable conservation status including a small car park at Kernahill and (ii) Engineering works to provide ground form and drainage to retain water within cells which will be used to support the growth of sphagnum. Bolton Fell Moss, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA6 5NA. (ELL)
Allerdale
2/13/9007 Section 73 application to vary conditions no 1 & no 55 of 28.06.13 EIA Application Cumbria planning permission 2/93/9033 to allow extended period of Recycling Ltd tipping until 2029 with an additional year for restoration, Reduce the landfill void, Revised restoration and contours, revise phasing of tipping , confirm accepted waste types, regularise areas of historic tipping and address historic contradictions and confirm remaining void space. Joseph Noble Road, Lillyhall, CA14 4JX (JP)
2/13/9012 Continuation of Slag Extraction, inert Landfill and Recycling 09.10.13 Thomas until 31 October 2016. Section 73 Application to amend Armstrong(Agg Planning Condition No. 1. Derwent Howe Slag Bank, Princes regates) Ltd Way, Derwent Howe, Workington, CA14 5AE. (JP)
Eden
3/08/9020 Application to Deepen Part of Shapfell Quarry and associated 01.12.08 Collection of data Tata Steel mitigation measures. Shapfell Quarry, Hardendale, Shap, on ground and Penrith, CA10 3QG surface water are (JLC) ongoing. Data anticipated to be submitted November 2013.
Page 177 3/12/9013 Review of Working Scheme and Conditions (Environment Act 27.09.12 Periodic Review Lakeland Waste 1995) of planning consent 3/91/0396 for operations at Flusco (ROMP) Management Ltd Quarry. Flusco Quarry Landfill Site, Newbiggin, Penrith, EIA Application CA11 0HT Updated scheme (MM) received 21 July 2013 Anticipated for November Committee
3/12/9014 Extension of time for operations at Flusco Quarry (Section 73 27.09.12 EIA Application Lakeland Waste application to amend condition 2 of planning consent Updated scheme Management Ltd 3/91/0396). Flusco Quarry Landfill Site, Newbiggin, Penrith, received 21 July 2013 CA11 0HT Anticipated for (MM) November Committee
3/12/9015 Extension of time for operations at Flusco Quarry (Section 27.09.12 EIA Application Lakeland Waste 73 application to amend condition 2 of planning consent Updated scheme Management Ltd 3/04/9014). Flusco Quarry Landfill Site, Newbiggin, Penrith, received 21 July 2013 CA11 0HT Anticipated for (MM) November Committee
Copeland
4/11/9007 Phased construction of Vaults 9a to 14 and for the disposal of 07.07.11 EIA Application LLW low level radioactive wastes within these new Vaults and Pending receipt of Repository Ltd within the existing Vault 9 with higher stacking, for the Further Information retention of temporarily higher stacked containers in Vault 8 with additional higher stacking. Phased construction of a A site visit will be permanent engineered capping layer over Trenches 1 to 7 arranged prior to and Vaults 8 to 14, with other ancillary works. Low Level application going to Committee. Waste Repository, near Drigg, Holmrook, CA19 1XL (JLC)
4/13/9008 S73 Application for the variation of Conditions of Planning 16.08.13 Low Level Consent 4/06/9016 relating to the Decommissioning of PCM Waste Retrieval facilities. Low Level Waste Repository Ltd, Old Repository Ltd Shore Road, Drigg, Seascale, Cumbria, CA19 1XH (ELL)
South Lakeland
Nil
Barrow
Nil
Recommendation Members are asked to consider whether they wish to visit any of the above sites prior to determination.
Page 178 Agenda Item 11
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & REGULATION COMMITTEE
Meeting Date: 18 October 2013 From: Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability
APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BUT AWAITING SIGNING OF LEGAL AGREEMENTS NOTE: These are applications that have been granted by DCR committee, but for which a Decision Notice has not yet been issued as they are awaiting the sign off of legal agreements.
Authority Area/ Proposal / Date Ref. No. / Site Location / Received / Further Applicant - (Case Officer) - Registered - Info
Eden
3/97/9002 Determination of new conditions for a mineral site 30.01.97 Pending Cemex UK Hartley Quarry, Hartley, Kirkby Stephen, CA17 4JJ signing of Operations Ltd (RB) Section 106 agreemen t.
FOOTNOTE
Case Officer Contact Details :
Initials - Name - Title - Telephone No. - DH David Hughes Senior Monitoring & Enforcement Officer 01539 71 3422 ELL Emma Lunn Senior Planning Officer 01539 71 3426 EP Edward Page Planning Officer 01539 71 3424 FMcE Francesca McEnaney Planning Officer 01228 22 1027 GH Graham Hale Spatial Planning Team Leader 01228 22 6716 GI Graeme Innes Senior Planning Officer 01228 22 6599 GK Guy Kenyon Senior Planning Officer 01228 22 6739 IF Iain Fairlamb Planning Services Manager 01228 22 1065 JLC Jane Corry Development Control Team Leader 01539 71 3414 JP Jayne Petersen Senior Planning Officer 01539 71 3549 MB Michael Barry Senior Planning Officer 01228 22 6729 MM Maggie Mason Senior Planning Officer 01539 71 3114 PF Paul Feehily Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability 01228 22 6476 RB Rachel Brophy Senior Planning Officer 01539 71 3413 RP Richard Pearse County Landscape & Countryside Officer 01539 71 3427
Page 179 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 180 Agenda Item 12
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & REGULATION COMMITTEE
Meeting Date: 18 October 2013 From: Assistant Director - Planning & Sustainability
REPORTS ON CONSULTATIONS BY DISTRICT COUNCILS, NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITIES, ADJOINING PLANNING AUTHORITIES, & GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS, ETC. NOTE: In accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Schedule 1, paragraph 7, the County Council is consulted on those applications which are considered to fall within the agreed Development Control Code of Practice for Cumbria. Case Officer Contact Details are provided in the Footnote, following the list of Applications/consultations which may be considered at future meetings, etc.
Authority Area/ Proposal / Date Ref. No. / Site Location / Received / Applicant - (Case Officer) - Registered -
Carlisle
Nil
Allerdale
Nil
Eden
Nil
Copeland
2/13/0519 Erection Of 8 Wind Turbines With A Maximum Height To Blade 24.07.13 REG Tip Of 100m With Associated Ancillary Infrastructure, Control Windpower Ltd Building, Internal Access Tracks, Crane Pads And Temporary Site Visited Site Compound/Storage Area. High Pow Wind Farm, Bolton New 02.10.13 Houses, Wigton. (RP)
South Lakeland
Nil
Barrow
Nil
Others
Page 181 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 182 Agenda Item 12a
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 18 th October 2013 A Report by the Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability ______
District Allerdale Borough Council
Application No 2/2013/0519
Applicant REG Windpower Ltd ______
PROPOSAL: Erection Of 8 Wind Turbines With A Maximum Height To Blade Tip Of 100m With Associated Ancillary Infrastructure, Control Building, Internal Access Tracks, Crane Pads And Temporary Site Compound/Storage Area
LOCATION: High Pow Wind Farm, Bolton New Houses, Wigton
Page 183 1. RECOMMENDATION
1.1 That an objection is raised due to adverse landscape, visual and cumulative effects which are not outweighed by the environmental benefits associated with the renewable energy generation and carbon savings which would arise from this scheme.
2. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The application site comprises agricultural land, located between Boltongate and Bolton Low Houses. The closest turbine lies approximately 4.1km from Wigton, 3.1km from the Lake District National Park, and 11km from the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The planning application boundary covers an area of approximately 21.7 hectares. The application site is centred at NGR 324500 543000.
2.2 The proposed scheme would have a generating capacity of approximately 16 megawatts. It would form an extension to the three existing wind turbines, which became operational in 2007 1. Consent is sought for a period of 25 years (the operational life of the scheme), including approximately 12 months for construction and 12 months for decommissioning.
2.3 The Scheme will comprise the following elements:
The installation of up to eight turbines, of a maximum blade tip height of 100m, each providing an output of approximately 2 megawatts A control building and ancillary equipment A temporary site compound / storage area Crane hardstandings and outrigger pads An access track leading to the site and internal access tracks linking the turbines Underground electrical cables.
2.4 The scheme will require a connection to the local distribution network. The grid connection to the site will be made using underground cable. The connection to the local distribution network does not form part of this application. However, an indicative grid connection corridor has been considered for EIA purposes. All necessary consents required for the connection will be secured by the Distribution Network Operator.
2.5 The main access route to the site will be via the M6 (J44), A689, and A595. The minor road at Pattenfoot will then be followed south for approximately 1/2km, to where an access into the site will be created.
3. REPRESENTATIONS
1 The proposal was allowed at appeal in 2005. A copy of the appeal decision is included in Appendix 2.
Page 184 3.1 At the time of writing this report, Allerdale Borough Council had received 215 letters of objection to the proposal, and five letters of no objection.
3.2 Allerdale Borough Council consults the County Council in our capacity as strategic planning authority. The County Council is not the decision making body for this proposal. As a result we do not consult with other bodies or individuals. Allerdale Borough Council does this as it is the decision making body. Its officers will take account of all the comments received from consultees when determining the application.
4 STRATEGIC ISSUES
4.1 The application has been assessed in regard to strategic planning policy. The strategic policy base used to assess this application comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (and associated guidance), and the Cumbria Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy (Sub-RSS). The Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy carries material weight as the spatial planning framework for Cumbria’s Community Strategy.
4.2 The NPPF includes a number of core planning principles of relevance to this proposal. These include the need to: secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; support the transition to a low carbon future - encouraging the use of renewable resources; take into account the roles and character of different areas; and recognise the intrinsic beauty of the countryside and the importance of supporting thriving rural communities within it.
4.3 Paragraphs 97 and 98 of the NPPF give specific guidance on renewable energy. The NPPF states that local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from such sources. Authorities are encouraged to have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources; design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts; and consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources where this would help secure the development of such sources. 4.4 The NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy, and approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
4.5 Paragraph 109 outlines guidance in regard to conserving and enhancing the natural environment, which includes the need for the planning system to contribute to the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes.
Page 185 4.6 In July 2013, the Department for Communities and Local Government published ‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy’. The guidance provides advice on the planning issues associated with the development of renewable energy. Paragraph 1 clarifies that the guidance should be read alongside other planning practice guidance and the NPPF. The approach outlined by the guidance should therefore be given material weight in the assessment of this scheme.
4.7 Paragraph 5 of the guidance states that ‘The National Planning Policy Framework explains that all communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy, but this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities’.
4.8 Paragraph 8 goes on to state that ‘…local planning authorities will need to ensure they take into account the requirements of the technology and critically, the potential impacts on the local environment, including from cumulative impacts. The views of local communities likely to be affected should be listened to’.
4.9 Paragraph 9 notes that landscape character areas could form the basis for considering the location and scale of renewable energy developments, with local level assessments highlighted as an appropriate scale for assessing the likely landscape and visual impacts of individual proposals.
4.10 The guidance also clarifies the approach which should be taken to issues of noise, safety, electromagnetic transmissions, ecology, heritage and shadow flicker.
4.11 Section 5 of the Cumbria Sub-RSS outlines guidance on the delivery of the Strategy. Paragraph 5.2 states that:
The key to delivering a sustainable Cumbria is to ensure that through detailed consideration of the impacts, the benefits of development clearly outweigh the disbenefits and any potential negative effects are mitigated or have little or no impact. Developments will be reviewed in the context of their contribution to climate change.
4.12 Paragraph 5.3 outlines a set of development principles, which include: the need to avoid the loss of or damage to distinctive natural and cultural conservation features, (including landscapes and visually important public and private open space); secure high standards in design and construction, (including siting, scale, use of materials and landscaping which respect and where possible enhance the distinctive character of the townscape and landscape); ensure development is within infrastructure, community and service constraints; and minimise levels of light pollution and noise.
4.13 Additional guidance in regard to wind energy developments in Cumbria is contained in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which was adopted by Allerdale Borough Council in 2008. The SPD, alongside the Cumbria Renewable Energy Study (2011), addresses the concurrent needs, outlined in the NPPF and supporting guidance, for local planning authorities to prepare positive strategies in regard to renewable energy
Page 186 development, and conserve and enhance valued landscapes. The approach underpinning the SPD is explained in Part 1, paragraph 1.22, which states ‘It is important that we look favourably on wind energy development that does not cause unacceptable harm to our built and natural environment. When preparing wind energy proposals, a range of environmental, social and economic effects need to be considered’ .
4.14 The SPD includes a detailed landscape capacity assessment, which highlights the key characteristics and particular sensitivities which inform 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.
4.15 The applicants suggest that the SPD carries ‘nil, or at best very little weight’ (Planning Statement, paragraph 5.40). I would disagree with this view. As noted above, the SPD is compliant with the approach dictated by the NPPF and supporting guidance, and provides an appropriate means by which to ensure local views in regard to the landscape and visual effects of the scheme can be objectively assessed.
4.16 The applicant suggests that Allerdale Council adopted the guidance ‘as supplementary planning guidance to the now rescinded County Joint Structure Plan’ , and that given that the Structure Plan no longer forms part of the Development Plan, the SPD carries little weight. This is incorrect however. The SPD was adopted individually by each Cumbrian district in 2008, including by Allerdale ‘to form part of the borough’s Local Development Framework’ (Adoption Statement, 23 rd January 2008). It is referred to in the supporting text of Allerdale Council’s emerging Local Plan – which confirms its continuing relevance.
4.17 The applicant also suggests that the SPD should be given reduced weight because ‘the assessment of landscape capacity and sensitivity has been completed on a relatively broad brush, rather than a scheme specific basis’. A similarly ‘broad brush’ approach would need to be taken by any such guidance however, which seeks to assess relative suitability to accommodate renewable energy development on a landscape character basis (as recommended by the NPPF and supporting guidance). Part 2, paragraph 2.6 clarifies that the SPD ‘…does not negate the need for assessment of individual applications where detailed site specific landscape and visual impact assessments will still be required’.
Landscape, Visual & Cumulative Effects
Landscape Effects
4.18 The site comprises agricultural pasture laid out in large geometric shaped fields, which are bordered by linear hedgerows. The site lies within landscape sub-type 5a ‘Lowland Ridge and Valley’, as defined by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (CLCGT).
Page 187 4.19 The CLCGT states that 5a is a generally medium scale landscape. In terms of Perceptual Character, the guidance states that:
There are attractive views over the Solway Firth and towards the Lakeland fells. Despite the concentration of large scale wind energy schemes that dominate the landscape around Workington, many parts remain intact and retain the sense of a pleasant, peaceful working farmed landscape.
4.20 In regard to Sensitive Characteristics or Features the CLCGT states:
The peaceful pastoral atmosphere away from busier parts is sensitive to large scale development.
4.21 In regard to Development, the CLCGT states:
Large scale wind energy schemes have already changed the character of the sub type around Workington. Without careful control, parts of this sub type could become defined by wind energy development. This could have knock on effects on the character of adjacent landscape types due to the far reaching visual effects of such development.
4.22 The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD judges landscape Type 5 as having moderate capacity overall to accommodate turbine development.
4.23 The Wind Energy SPD states that turbines are likely to be seen as ‘dominant’ up to 2.4kms from the site, ‘prominent’ at a distance of 2.4 to 6km and ‘conspicuous’ between 6 and 12km. Whilst the majority of the landscape surrounding the site within the 6km range falls within landscape sub-type 5a, the area to the immediate south lies partly within landscape sub-type 12b ‘Rolling Fringe’ – which abuts the boundary of the Lake District National Park. I consider the effects upon landscape sub-types 5a and 12b to be the key issue in landscape character terms.
4.24 The applicant has submitted a detailed landscape and visual assessment. The applicant follows standard methodology. Effects are evaluated through considering magnitude of change and sensitivity, which lead to effects ranging from ‘very substantial’ to ‘negligible’. In terms of the EIA regulations, all effects above ‘substantial/moderate’ are considered to be significant.
4.25 The scheme has been designed so as to incorporate the three existing turbines. As such, the original, and proposed schemes are not treated as separate developments in the assessment. Rather, ‘Phase I’ and ‘Phase II’ have been defined. Phase I considers the effects of the scheme during the consented lifecycle of the existing three turbines (approximately 2013 to 2031). Phase II considers the effects of the scheme post decommissioning of the existing three turbines (approximately 2032 to 2038). The key findings in regard to landscape and visual impact do not significantly differ between Phase I and Phase II. As such, the cumulative impact of the existing and proposed High Pow schemes are considered through the landscape and visual assessment sections of the report below. They are not treated separately in the cumulative effects section. The scheme should therefore be regarded as a single wind farm, consisting of
Page 188 11 turbines, which would be in place until 2031, and 8 turbines from 2032-38.
4.26 The applicant suggests that in the immediate vicinity of the existing High Pow turbines, a ‘wind farm landscape’ has been created up to approximately 600m from the development. Furthermore, a new landscape sub type, ‘5a/12b with turbines’, within 5a and 12b has been created, up to a distance of 1.8km. The effects of the new development upon the ‘wind farm landscape’, sub type, the ‘with wind farm’ landscape, and original sub types have been assessed separately. This approach is consistent with good practice.
4.27 Given the existing dominance of turbines within 600m, the effects of the proposed development upon the wind farm landscape are assessed by the applicant as being not significant. The extension of turbine development into the ‘5a/12b with turbines’ sub types has been assessed as significant however.
4.28 The applicant concludes that for the remainder of 5a and 12b, the effects upon the sub types as a whole are not significant, albeit noting that where there are anticipated areas of high magnitudes of change, there would be ‘moderate- substantial’ (and therefore significant in EIA terms) effects.
4.29 I am in general agreement with this assessment, although in my view, the findings are not clearly presented. In particular, it is to be expected that the impact upon the landscape sub-types as a whole will be relatively low, given the relative size of the sub types overall. However, as noted, where there are anticipated high magnitudes of change, the effects will be significant. The applicant’s viewpoint analysis (see below) suggests that significant effects will be experienced up to 4.7km from the scheme. In my view, these effects would also be felt up to 6km from the site.
4.30 As such, it should be clarified that the effects upon local landscape character up to 6km from the site are likely to be significant.
4.31 The applicant’s assessment refers to the County Council’s 1995 Landscape Classification. This has now been superseded by the CLCGT. The CLCGT updates the 1995 assessment. In particular, it is relevant to note that the quotes from the CLCGT highlighted above, which refer to the impacts of wind energy development, are not included in the 1995 assessment.
4.32 These references are key in my view. The CLCGT describes a largely peaceful rural landscape. The increasing dominance of turbines, particularly in areas where landscape character is currently predominantly rural, is clearly a concern.
4.33 The applicant’s viewpoint analysis shows that within 6km of the site, the turbines will be clearly visible as a skyline feature, breaking the horizon, thereby increasing their prominence. Beyond this zone, from the north, the turbines will be backclothed by the low ridge to the south of the site, and by the Lake District fells beyond. They will be seen in a wider landscape context which includes modern utilitarian developments, including trunk roads, pylons, transmitter masts and conifer blocks. From the south, beyond 6m, visibility will be restricted by the Lake District fells.
Page 189 4.34 As noted above, the Wind Energy SPD anticipates the development of a maximum of 9 no. turbine groups in Type 5 (in exceptional circumstances). In my view, the development of 11 turbines in this location would result in a highly urbanising influence in what is essentially a largely tranquil, rural landscape. 11 turbines would represent an industrial scale of development, inappropriate to the medium scale nature of the landscape. The submitted photomontages indicate that the construction of 8 additional turbines would significantly exacerbate the impact of the existing development upon local landscape character.
4.35 Whilst the development would mainly affect landscape type 5, landscape type 12 would also be significantly affected within the 6km zone. This landscape type is adjudged as having a lower capacity to accommodate turbine development (low/moderate). The WESPD recognises the important functions of this area, in providing a setting to the Lake District National Park, and through contributing to coastal panoramas from the northern fells.
Impact Upon Designations – Lake District National Park
4.36 The Lake District National Park boundary is located 3.1km to the south of the scheme, at its closest point. The applicant’s ZTV analysis indicates that within 6km of the site, visibility of the turbines will be limited within the National Park – mainly to the northern slopes of Binsey. Binsey has a summit height of 447m, and is the northernmost Wainwright Peak in the Park. Beyond this zone, visibility is restricted to limited areas on the tops of the Calbeck and Skiddaw fells (over 10km away).
4.37 The applicant has assessed the landscape impact upon the LDNP as being not significant.
4.38 In my view, whilst the impact upon the National Park taken as a whole will be reduced due to the restricted visibility of the scheme within the designation, the effect upon Binsey will be greater than assessed by the applicant. The Lake District Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines (2008) recommend the protection of key views to and from the area from tall, vertical and large- scale developments that may erode character (Type J: High Fell Fringe, Section 4, pp. 63-66), and highlight the panoramic 360 degree views from the top of Binsey Fell which are vulnerable to interruption (Area of Distinctive Character 2: Bassenthwaite and Uldale, Section 5, pp. 5-8).
4.39 The turbines will be clearly visible in middle distance views towards the Solway Estuary from the summit of the fell. Concern is raised in regard to the successive cumulative visual impact of the scheme from the summit of Binsey, when considered in conjunction with the Wharrels Hill development, and the turbines visible further west, towards the coast.
Page 190 Impact Upon Designations – Solway Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
4.40 The applicant notes that the AONB lies at approximately 11km to the west of the scheme at its closest point, going on to state that where views exist, the scheme would be generally viewed within a large scale landscape incorporating a number of existing urban elements.
4.41 I would agree with this view. As noted above, at distances beyond 6km, the turbines will increasingly be seen as part of the wider landscape, with their prominence reduced through distance, and through being backclothed by landform.
4.42 The turbines will however, be clearly apparent from areas within and immediately adjoining the AONB (notably Abbeytown), increasing the urban influence in views from the AONB.
4.43 The Solway Coast AONB Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment (2010) notes that onshore wind turbine developments are affecting skylines and the setting of the AONB (p.57). Due to low lying nature of the intervening landscape, clear views across the designation, northwards over the Solway Estuary to Scotland, can be seen across much of landscape sub type 5a. This is illustrated by the Character Assessment, which includes a ‘Zone of Theoretical Visibility of Solway Coast’ assessment (Figure 13). This assessment would suggest that the turbines will be visible in many views northwards towards the AONB within 6km of the site. Given this, the setting of the AONB in views towards the designation will also be affected by the development.
4.44 In my view therefore, the overall impact upon the AONB would be moderate, rather than slight, as suggested by the applicant (this remains ‘not significant’ in EIA terms).
Impact Upon Designations – Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site
4.45 The applicant states that given the distance of the application site from the designation (in the region of 20km), the effects of the scheme would not be significant. I would concur with this view.
Visual Effects
4.46 The applicant’s assessment for viewpoints 1-11 suggests that up to 4.7km from the site, the visual effects of the scheme will be significant in EIA terms. I would agree with the assessments of effect upon these viewpoints.
4.47 Viewpoint 12, located 5.8km from the nearest turbine, on the A595 at Forest Hall, is assessed as ‘moderate’. In my view, the magnitude of effect here would be ‘medium’ rather than ‘low’, which would lead to a ‘moderate-substantial’ effect (therefore significant in EIA terms).
4.48 Beyond this distance, the effect upon viewpoints is assessed as moderate to slight. I would agree with this assessment.
Page 191 4.49 The applicant has assessed the visual impact of the development upon settlements. Bolton Low Houses (1.3km from the nearest turbine), Bolton New Houses (0.9km from the nearest turbine), and Bolton Wood Lane (1.2km from the nearest turbine), are all predicted to experience significant effects in EIA terms where the turbines are visible. (It is noted that visibility will be restricted in parts of these settlements).
4.50 77 properties within 2km of the site have been individually assessed by the applicant. Of these, 60 are predicted to experience significant visual effects. The applicant states that none of the properties will experience collective effects which would affect overall visual amenity and associated living standards. This is understood as meaning that no conflict is raised with the Lavender Test 2 in the applicant’s view.
4.51 Five properties (Hideaway, Solway View, Hallbank (2 properties) and Pastureside) are highlighted as being the most significantly affected. These range in distance from 598 to 755m south of the turbines. The applicant’s assessment indicates that parts of these properties will experience uninterrupted views of the turbines. It is not clear whether the assessor gained access to the properties in order to undertake the assessment. This should be verified by the determining authority, since the potential impacts of such a large scale development at such a close range are very significant – and as such, any potential conflict with the Lavender Test should be fully considered.
Cumulative Effects
4.52 The applicant states that potential cumulative effects are limited due to the distance of other schemes from the site, and the roadside tree/hedgerow cover restricting visibility.
4.53 The closest major development to the site is Wharrel’s Hill, which comprises 8 turbines with a blade tip height of 81m, 9km to the south west. Great Orton II, which comprises 6 turbines with a blade tip height of 66m, lies 13 km to the north east.
4.54 I would agree that the potential for simultaneous cumulative impact is limited by the distance between these developments and the site. However, concerns are raised in regard to sequential cumulative impact, particularly upon users of the A595.
4.55 The applicant’s assessment states that all existing, consented and pending decision turbine developments have been taken into account in the assessment. The assessment is base dated June 2013.
2 The Lavender Test derives from case law, and is applied as standard in the assessment of major wind energy developments. It seeks to establish the level of impact upon residential amenity of wind turbine developments sited in close range of dwellings.
Page 192 4.56 The applicant has not included the proposed 61m turbine at Lane Head however, which lies approximately 1.5km to the south west of the site. This application was refused by Allerdale Borough Council in November 2012, and is currently the subject of appeal. In addition, the existing, recently constructed 65m turbine at Orton Park farm on the outskirts of Carlisle (approved in November 2011), has also not been included.
4.57 Since the publication of the applicant’s assessment, the further two proposed 86m turbines at Orton Park farm, referred to by the applicant as ‘application submitted’ have been approved, as has the application to construct a 75m turbine at How End farm, close to Thursby.
4.58 All of the aforementioned turbines lie within 2km of the A595.
4.59 The application to construct three 115m turbines at Carwath farm (see DCR report 5th June 3013) is still pending at the time of writing this report. Should this development be constructed, it will be visible from the A595, at a distance of approximately 2.5km.
4.60 All approved planning applications should be given material weight in the planning assessment of this proposal. Applications which are as yet undetermined should not be given material weight, but are included for members’ information.
4.61 The A595, between Carlisle and Whitehaven, is already affected by turbine development. The most notable impacts (as acknowledged in the CLCGT) are currently towards Workington – arising mainly from the Winscales I and II developments. The concentration, and therefore influence, of turbines gradually decreases eastwards of Bridgefoot. Full visibility of the recently constructed Tallentire Hill turbine development (approximately 3km from the road at its closest point) is restricted by landform, albeit the Wharrel’s Hill scheme at Bothel is clearly visible at a distance of 300m. The three existing High Pow turbines can be seen at a distance of approximately 2km, in the vicinity of Bolton Low Houses.
4.62 The applicant has concluded that significant effects resulting from the development would be experienced for approximately 1km along the A595. The cumulative effects of the Wharrels Hill, Tallentire and Winscales are referenced in the assessment. The magnitude of change to the whole route is considered by them to be low.
4.63 I am concerned that this assessment underestimates the cumulative impact upon the A595 however. As noted above, several turbine proposals are at an advanced stage in the vicinity of Carlisle, a number of which have not been fully taken into account by the applicant. The construction of a scheme of the scale proposed at High Pow would have a clear impact upon receptors’ perception of the landscape as viewed from the A595. The development would exacerbate the visual impact of turbines eastwards of Workington, and serve, alongside the Wharrel’s Hill development, to ‘link’ the existing conglomeration of turbines around the former, with the emerging conglomeration on the outskirts of Carlisle.
Page 193 4.64 In my view therefore, the cumulative magnitude upon the A595 as a whole should be regarded as at least ‘moderate’, leading to a substantial/moderate (and therefore EIA significant) effect.
Energy Contribution
4.65 National policy strongly encourages the use of renewable energy sources to help offset greenhouse gas emissions and the increasing reliance on imported energy supplies. They form part of a mix of energy resources being supported by Government. The 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 off shore, as key to meeting these targets.
4.66 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 and their concrete bases would be offset by the carbon saved from renewable electricity production within the first 10-12 months of operation.
4.67 Strategic planning policies support the development of renewable energy projects. As noted above, the National Planning Policy Framework encourages local authorities to support low carbon energy proposals that do not cause unacceptable harm to the local environment, and the Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy states that developments will be reviewed in relation to their contribution towards climate change.
4.68 The proposed scheme would have a generating capacity of approximately 16 megawatts. In assessing this scheme, this contribution towards energy supply needs to be considered alongside the local impacts of the development, in accord with strategic planning guidance.
Archaeology
4.69 The Historic Environment Officer notes that the cultural heritage section of the EIA indicates that the proposed development lies in an area of some archaeological potential.
4.70 The Historic Environment Officer considers that insufficient information on the impact of the development upon buried archaeological remains has been provided, and advises that additional information is required prior to the determination of the application on the presence/absence of any archaeological remains located on the site and how their significance will be affected by the development proposals.
4.71 The additional information suggested should therefore be sought by Allerdale Borough Council prior to the determination of the application.
Page 194 Ecology
4.72 The applicant indicates that no more than minor negative ecological impacts will result from the development of the scheme. A package of mitigation and enhancement measures have been proposed, which should be secured by appropriate conditions.
4.73 This application has not been considered by the County Ecologist. It is anticipated that Allerdale Borough Council will undertake its own detailed assessment.
Highways
4.74 The Council’s Highways Development Manager has delegated authority to comment upon the scheme, and has submitted comments directly to Allerdale Borough Council. A copy of the comments are included in the appendix to this report, for information. Although no objection was raised, concerns were highlighted in regard to access at the Patten Foot junction – which should be addressed through the imposition of suitable conditions.
4.75 Concerns have been raised by the Local Member (see Appendix 1) in regard to the effect of the total number of vehicle movements which will be generated during the construction phase (35,096) upon the Patten Foot junction, and the A595. Notwithstanding any other outstanding issues, consent should not be granted unless these concerns can be addressed via a Construction Method Statement, secured by appropriate conditions.
Other Matters
4.76 The recent DCLG guidance referred to in Section 4 notes that wind turbines can potentially affect electromagnetic transmissions (DCLG, paragraph 32). The applicant’s ES does not indicate whether potential interference with television and broadband signals has been assessed. Allerdale Council, as the decision making body, should ensure that this issue is addressed, in consultation with the specialist organisations responsible, as indicated in the DCLG guidance.
4.77 The applicant has assessed the potential impacts upon the local economy. It is stated that during the 12 month construction phase, approximately eight full time workers would be needed, which would peak to 30 during turbine erection. It is noted that the applicant encourages the use of local contractors for construction, operation and maintenance work where possible. The potential effect is not considered significant in EIA terms. During operation, there would be a need for a minimum of two workers to service the development at regular intervals. The applicant also notes that there may be opportunities for local businesses to supply services and materials related to maintenance, and highlights the long term income through lease payments to the farm on which the scheme stands. Again, the effect is not considered to be significant in EIA terms - as is the effect during decommissioning.
Page 195 4.78 It is welcome that the developer has recognised the need to remove all structures after the operation of the turbines cease. If Allerdale Borough Council resolve to approve the application, this requirement should be conditioned.
4.79 The applicant has stated that the upper sections of the foundation structures would be removed to below ground level with the large flat bases left in-situ, although no part would be visible. The area would be reinstated to pasture following the removal of the upper foundation construction. Should this application be approved, the proposed application site will contain six concrete foundation blocks. By retaining part of these foundation blocks, the future agricultural use of at least part of the site could be made unviable. Therefore, should planning permission be granted, the determining authority should include a planning condition which requires the applicant to remove the whole of the concrete foundations, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the removal of the blocks would cause more environmental damage than leaving them in situ.
4.80 In order to address any potential concerns in regard to the ongoing maintenance of the site, a condition should also be included in any subsequent consent which would require the removal of the turbines and ancillary equipment should they fail to produce electricity for supply to the electricity grid for a continuous period of 12 months. The submission of a financial bond in order to secure this should be considered by the determining authority.
4.81 The decision making body should ensure other relevant issues highlighted in the DCLG guidance, notably noise (paragraph 30) and shadow flicker (paragraph 35) are addressed.
5. CONCLUSION
5.1 Strategic policy promotes renewable energy and looks to local planning authorities to support proposals for renewable energy developments which do not have unacceptable impacts.
5.2 Significant weight must be given to the contribution this development would make towards the production of renewable energy. Climate change is recognised as a fundamental issue in planning guidance, and the key role to be played by onshore wind turbines in seeking to address this is emphasised in government policy. However, the assessment contained in this report illustrates that this proposal gives rise to significant concerns in regard to the industrialising effects upon the character of the local landscape, the visual impact upon local settlements, and the cumulative impact upon receptors travelling along the A595 – to the point where the overall perception of the landscape between Carlisle and Workington would be changed. These concerns are reflected in the comments of councillors, who refer to the concerns of local people. Recent guidance reiterates the importance of ensuring that local views are taken fully into account.
Page 196 5.3 It is therefore considered that the landscape, visual and cumulative effects outweigh the wider benefits associated with the generation of renewable energy in this case. Given this, an objection should be raised against this scheme as, on balance, it is contrary to strategic planning policy contained in the NPPF, Sub-RSS and supporting guidance outlined in the Cumbria Wind Energy SPD.
Paul Feehily Assistant Director - Planning and Sustainability
Page 197 Contact
Richard Pearse
Principal Planning Officer: Landscape & Countryside
Kendal 01539 713427
Background Papers
Planning Application File Reference 2/2013/0519
Electoral Division Identification
Local Member: Cllr. Duncan Fairbairn, Thursby ED
Adjoining Members: Cllr. Alan Bowness, Bothel & Wharrels ED Cllr. Bert Richardson, Greystoke & Hesket ED Cllr. Trevor Allison, Dalston & Burgh ED Cllr. Roger Liddle, Wigton ED Cllr. Jim Lister, Aspatria ED Cllr .Tony Markley, Solway Coast ED
Page 198 APPENDIX 1 – Comments Submitted by CCC Highways, and County Councillors
Pieter Barnard: Highways Development Management Officer:
Dear Ms Wilson
CONSULTATION WITH PLANNING AUTHORITIES
8 WIND TURBINES
HIGH POW WIND FARM BOLTON NEW HOUSES WIGTON
Thank you for your consultation on the above application dated 18 July 2013:-
The proposed development has no direct access from the A595.
However components for the development, some of them very large, will use the junction at Pattenfoot (Ireby Lane) to get to the site. The junction has radii of approx 10m. The side road is approx 7m wide at the tangent points and approx 6m wide 50m into the junction. Visibility to the right is in excess of 200m while to the left it is approx 160m. Forward visibility of the junction on the A595 is good.
The abnormal loads anticipated will be accompanied by an escort vehicle to increase awareness and visibility of the loads and assist with traffic management at tight locations. While we would not anticipate any issues with the junction itself the developer will be required to make good any damage to the verges or street furniture caused by deliveries.
I would therefore suggest no objection to the proposal on highway grounds but would recommend that the following conditions are included in any consent you might grant :
Development shall not be begun until a Construction Method Statement including details of all on-site construction works, post-construction reinstatement, drainage, mitigation, and other restoration, together with details of their timetabling has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and shall include measures to secure :
• formation of the construction compound and access tracks and any areas of hardstanding; • dust management; • cleaning of site entrances and the adjacent public highway; • temporary site illumination; • method of working cable trenches the erection of the meteorological mast; • the sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway; • soil storage and handling; • post-construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas The Construction Method Statement shall be carried out as approved.
Development shall not be begun until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CTMP shall include details of :
• the construction of the site access and the creation, positioning and maintenance of associated visibility splays; • access gates will be hung to open away from the public highway no less than 10m from the
Page 199 carriageway edge and shall incorporate appropriate visibility displays; • proposed accommodation works and where necessary a programme for their subsequent removal and the reinstatement of street furniture and verges, where required, along the route; • the pre-construction road condition established by a detailed survey for accommodation works within the highways boundary conducted with a Highway Authority representative; • details of road improvement, construction specification, strengthening, maintenance and repair commitments if necessary as a consequence of the development; • details of proposed crossings of the highway verge; • retained areas for vehicle parking, manoeuvring, loading and unloading for their specific purpose during the development; • the surfacing of the access roads from the public highway into the site shall extend for a minimum of 25m; • construction vehicle routing; • the dimensions of turbines and associated components; • the management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway and other public rights of way/footway; • the scheduling and timing of movements, details of escorts for abnormal loads, temporary warning signs and banksman/escort details. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CTMP.
Yours Sincerely
Pieter Barnard Development Management Officer Allerdale and Copeland
Page 200 Councillor Duncan Fairbairn:
Dear Mr Pearse
Many thanks for your letter of the 16 th September 2013, regarding the above.
I am very surprised that as the County was consulted, without any reference to me as the local cllr. I refer to the letter from Pieter Barnard (Dev Management Officer for Allerdale & Copeland, at Lillyhall, Workington) dated 8 th August 2013.
This application increases the compounding affect of the local area of Boltons Parish and the wider area of North Allerdale. As the strategic authority, has the Cumbria County Council expressed an opinion on this Compounding affect?
The original 3 wind turbines, when they were being transported to the site, ignored the route designated for the transporters. What management control will you put in place should this application proceed?
The route proposed by the developers uses the junction at Patten Foot, Bolton Low Houses. This part of the A595 is a very fast part, and has been subject to many accidents. I have just had to report that the road surface is breaking up and that the grass edge of one side of the corner has been pushed, back by at least a foot. This is with the current traffic flow. I have also received details of the proposed numbers of vehicles that are envisaged to be turning at this junction on route to the site. Some 35 000 movements. This is over and above the traffic that already use the junction.
I am also advised that there is already a wind turbine that passed planning before I became the local County cllr, and is now under appeal. This may add further usage of the said Patten Foot corner, and of course adding to the compounding affect of the wind turbine activity.
As the suggested area for these wind turbines is projected to be high enough to possibly cause interference of the TV reception to the north and west of the said site, what consideration has been made of this please?
Further, these Wind Turbines may well interfere with the proposed “Line of Sight” Superfast Broadband activity in the same rural area. What checks have you asked to be made on this item? Superfast Broadband is seen to be an important driver to allow business expansion in the rural areas. Business rates are and will become a very important factor in the future Council finances. What assessment have you made on this please?
The Cumbria County Council needs to make sure that all the aspects of the strategic planning overview is articulated on all these wind turbine applications. Already the A595 is becoming a very busy road, and with a possible increase in the number of timber lorries in the near future, that will be accessing the Workington area, any increase as the figures above suggest, will create problems.
Duncan Fairbairn Cumbria County Cllr for Thursby
Page 201 Councillor Roger Liddle:
From : County Councillor Roger Liddle, Lord Liddle of Carlisle
To: Richard Pearse, Principal Planning Officer: Landscape and Countryside, Cumbria County Council
Dear Mr Pearse,
Objection to the planning application for the erection of 8 wind turbines at High Pow Wind Farm, Bolton New Houses, Wigton (Ref 2/2013/0519)
As County Councillor for Wigton I am writing to object to the planning application for eight new turbines at Bolton Low Houses to add to the current three. Bolton Low Houses is not in my division, but many residents of the Wigton division have raised with me concerns about this application, especially in the adjoining Waverton and Woodside parishes where on-shore wind is also a live issue. The County’s Development Control will consider the application on October 18 th before Allerdale takes its final decision. I trust you will put my letter of objection before the meeting on the 18 th and pass on my views to Allerdale.
I start off my consideration of this application from the standpoint of being instinctively sympathetic to renewable energy. I am not a ‘climate change denier’ and the recent report of the UN Climate Change Panel has once again confirmed the objective scientific evidence that climate change is caused by human activity and represents a significant risk to the future of humanity. But this is different from believing that the subsidy and planning regime presently in place for renewable energy makes best sense. There is a growing consensus at national level and within the government that such a re-think is necessary. While obviously planning decisions have to be taken within the national policy as it is, the increasing questioning of the existing renewable regime is an argument for planning authorities to be less ‘gung-ho’ in their approval of renewables applications and where they can apply discretion, to make maximum use of it. I believe there is plenty of justification for making use of this discretion in this case.
In your letter, you helpfully set out the strategic issues that the application raises. It is my clear view that on all four criteria the application should be turned down, though on some points the arguments are admittedly clearer cut than on others:
1. Detrimental effect on landscape character, visual amenity and natural heritage.
This is the heart of the matter. Is it right that that the area between the Lake District Fells and the Solway Plain should have such a concentration of windfarms? Both the Lake District and the Solway Coast benefit rightly from tighter planning protections. This is because they are a vital part of our natural heritage. But crucial dimensions of that heritage are the spectacular views from one to the other. A proliferation of windfarms will destroy the wonderful sense of heavenly openness that one experiences walking on the Solway beaches between Silloth and Allonby looking over to the Lake District Fells. And the same is true for the views from the top edge of the fells looking over the Solway to Scotland. These are priceless, irreplaceable assets for our heritage, our county and our country. It is grossly irresponsible to allow them to be destroyed.
2. Cumulative impact
The question of cumulative impact is crucial and it is obviously a question of judgement. In my view, the number of windfarms the area presently hosts is just about supportable without causing irreplaceable damage to the landscape. But this is a big application, and if approved, could be seen as the green light for many more in this precious area. The time to draw a line is
Page 202 now.
3. Adverse effects on local amenity etc
Members should here listen to the views of the recently elected local district councillor, Marion Fitzgerald. She is genuinely independent and has no political axe to grind.
4. Whether the renewable energy and other benefits contribution outweigh the adverse effects
I cannot see much economic benefit to the local community in terms of jobs: the main value added is in the construction of the turbine which does not benefit Cumbria. The construction period will doubtless result in some environmental and traffic detriment. I gather that some windfarm operators are now offering a package of ‘community benefits’ to sweeten acceptance of their plans. I don’t know whether this has occurred in this case. But I cannot see how any ‘community benefit’ could be commensurate with the loss of visual amenity and natural heritage that the cumulative impact of windfarms in this area will create. In economic terms we should think of the long term tourism potential of the area, and not short term ‘bribes’.
I hope you will convey these views to the Development Committee and to Allerdale. I am sorry I will not be able to attend the site visit this week. I do however know the area well. My mother was brought up in Fletchertown and her parents both grew up in Bolton Low Houses. I intend to raise the question of the status of the current national planning guidance in the House of Lords.
Yours sincerely,
Roger Liddle LORD LIDDLE OF CARLISLE
Page 203 APPENDIX 2: Appeal Decision - Existing Turbines
Page 204 Page 205 Page 206 Page 207 Page 208 Page 209 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 210