Allerdale Borough Council 2/2009/0788
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Allerdale Borough Council 2/2009/0788 Reference No: 2/2009/0788 Received: 30 October 2009 Proposed Development of four wind turbines, anemometer mast, Development: associated access roads, substation and associated infrastructure Drawing Numbers: 09/6104/001/GLA/001 - Site Layout Plan 09/6104/001/GLA/002 - Site Location Plan 09.6104.001.GLA/PL/003 - Typical Wind Turbine Elevations 09.6104.011.GLA/PL/004 - Typical Section Through Turbine Base 09.6104.001.GLA/PL/005 - Contractors Compound Cable Trench and Access Track Details 09.6104.001.GLA/PL/006 - Typical Permanent Meteorological Mast 09.6104.001.GLA/PL/007 - Switchroom Plan & Elevations Location: Land off the B5301 Nr Threapland Lees Farm Threapland Aspatria Wigton Applicant: BT Plc Co nstraints: Radon Assessment Allerdale Flood Zone 1 British Coal Area Policies: National Planning Statements (Draft) EN-1 – National Policy Statement for Energy EN-3 – Energy Infrastructure National Planning Policies PPS22 – Renewable Energy (and the Companion Guide) PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development (Annexe on Climate Change) PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment The Government has recently deleted the North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021, therefore its planning policies are no longer a material planning consideration. Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001- 2016 (Saved) Policy ST4 - Not applicable as the scheme constitutes a ‘small group’. Policy R44 - Renewable energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONB’s Policy E34 – Areas and features of international conservation importance Policy E35 - Areas and features of nature conservation interest other than those of national and international conservation importance. Policy E37 - Landscape character Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy CO22 - Protection of archaeological remains Policy EN17 - Safeguarding the best agricultural land Policy EN19 - Landscape Protection Policy EN20 - Protection of AONB Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside Policy EN34 - Protecting significant wildlife habitats Policy EN37 - Protection of open land in urban areas Policy EN7 - Location of pollution sensitive development In addition, Cumbria County Council has produced an adopted Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which has also been adopted by Allerdale Borough Council, January 2008 (significant weight was attached to this at the recent allowed appeal decision at Hellrigg, Silloth). Representations: Cumbria Highways – In general the submitted detail is acceptable. The visibility at the site access is sub-standard, but as it is unlikely to have heavy use, only during the construction and decommissioning phases, the visibility would be acceptable to the Highways Authority (with only minor improvements to the highway. After assessing recorded accident history, construction period and the number of vehicles they do not consider is constitutes grounds for refusal. The access arrangement cannot be finalised until the precise dimensions of the turbines have been determined. The details of haul routes, improvements and its signage need approval of the Local Planning Authority under planning conditions. Also, a Traffic Management Plan should be produced. Therefore the Highways Authority raise no objections subject to highway conditions. Arqiva – No objections. United Utilities – No objections. Civil Aviation Authority – No apparent aerodrome related issues to the development, but highlight that there remains radar related issues which have not been resolved as highlighted by the NATS and MoD responses concerning ‘false plots’. The Environmental Statement (ES) comments on this impact as being ‘minor adverse’ has limited meaning without NATS’ validation which is not addressed in the submitted Environmental Statement. Also highlight: • The possible need to install aviation obstruction lighting to some or all of the turbines (dependent on the responses of other consultees as they may potentially act as a navigational hazard). • International regulations requires the rotor blades, nacelle and upper 2/3 of the turbines that are deemed to be an aviation obstruction should be painted white, unless otherwise indicated by an aeronautical study (depending on the consultation responses on whether it acts as an obstruction by other consultees). • Potential cumulative effect of proliferation of turbines in an area may result in difficulties which would not be generated by a single development i.e. just because one development was unopposed on aviation grounds does not automatically guarantee this would not raise objections to similar development in the locality. • Charting – All developments above 300m in height require recording via the Defence Geographic Agency. • Seek advice of local emergency air support units. Government Northwest – Does not consider the application to be regionally significant. Environment Agency – Advise the site is in Flood Zone 1 – no objections subject to conditions re drainage. Aspatria Town Council – Strongly object on grounds of visual impact to surrounding area and cumulative impact with other wind turbine development in the locality. Noise and flicker disturbance affecting residential dwellings in proximity of the site and the proposal will be very intrusive rather than the existing turbines at Wharrels Hill. Allhallows Parish Council – Recommend refusal: • Adverse effect on visual amenity. • Cumulative effect (Allerdale has largest percentage). • Excessive height. • Danger to health (noise and flicker). • Close proximity to residential dwellings. • Effect on wildlife. Plumbland Parish Council – Undertook a secret ballot independently counted (196 papers returned from 319 on electoral register, 178 against, 18 for – 56.6% of all possible voters reject with 6% in favour). Object on grounds of: • Cumulative impact (close to 8 existing turbines). Natural England recommend 6-12km between sites. • Noise (ETSU 97 guidance is inadequate with 100 times increase in noise level, which although within guidelines, is unacceptable as there is no room for error. • Residential amenity – Environmental Statement reference to “severe impact”, “Over dominant” and “long term adverse” adversely affecting amenity of residents in Threapland, Bothel and Plumbland. • Lack of consultation with local residents with the applicants declining to explore relocations or alternative site. • Adverse impact of flicker on residential property. • Failure to comply with Cumbria County Council guidelines. • Outline incorrect evidence in the submitted evidence e.g. reference to Peak District. Bothel and Threapland Parish Council – Recommend refusal on grounds of: • Visual impact – Size and scale of development would be harmful to local landscape. Wharrels Hill already dominates Bothel, the proposal will be seen from the Solway Coast, the National Park and southern Scotland. • Overbearing impact of 125m mast, 90m above Threapland dominating the village. • Noise – Noise levels result Threapland being on the very edge of acceptable noise levels, which use average figures, which result in some levels being above average. Increase in night levels. • Flicker – Impact from rising/setting sun or moonlight on houses approx. 500m from the site is unacceptable. • Loss of residential amenity – Size of proposal on living structures and perception of well-being of local residents. The European Landscape Convention recognises landscape as an essential component of people’s lives. • ‘Severe’ and detrimental impact of the development on Threapland’s village green. • Tourism – Detrimental impact potentially affects employment and opportunity in the area (including views from National Park) and holiday lets in the locality. The Parish consider the proposal would not generate any local employment and would have a harmful cumulative impact with the turbines on Wharrels Hill. Overall, consider the excessive impact on the community from the development is so excessive it should be rejected. Blennerhasset and Torpenhow Parish Council – Recommend refusal – ad hoc (sporadic development) prompting precedent for other small windfarm developments elsewhere. Blindcrake Parish Council – Voted against the development on grounds of large scale of the masts and their visual intrusion into the area where there is already a large windfarm (distraction for drivers on A595) – better sited elsewhere. Highways Agency – No comment. NATS – Due to the size of the turbines and their distance from radar stationing object as it conflicts with their safeguarding criteria (Lowther Hill). County Archaeologist – Refers to potential remains of Roman road across the site. Seek a planning condition to investigate and record this issue via an archaeological watching condition. Fire Officer – No objections. Cumbria Tourism – Commissioned its own survey in 2005, used as part of the Whinash windfarm evidence. Based on this evidence with 55% of 450 visitors advising that windfarms in Cumbria would have some (26%) and significant (29%) impact on the image of the landscape and therefore dispute the application’s claim that it would have a ‘negligible’ impact and that a more extensive review is required. It is considered that the survey indicates poorly and insensitively sited windfarms will damage the visitor economy of Cumbria. They consider the proposal would further erode and damage the environmental qualities of this part of Cumbria, especially when viewed cumulatively with neighbouring windfarms. Consider there is little evidence on the impact