The Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House Inquiry opened on 3 February 2009 2 The Square Temple Quay Site visits made on 6, 11 and 12 Bristol BS1 6PN February 2009  0117 372 6372 email:[email protected]. by Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC gov.uk

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: for Communities and Local Government 11/05/09

Appeal Ref: APP/G0908/A/08/2073524 Parkhead Farm, CA7 4PZ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by NPower Renewables Ltd against the decision of Borough Council. • The application Ref.2/2007/0076, dated 22 January 2007, was refused by notice dated 20 December 2007. • The development proposed is the erection of four wind turbines and associated infrastructure and services including site roads, crane pads, substation control building and temporary construction compound.

Preliminary Matters

1. The Inquiry sat from 3 to 6 February 2009. I carried out an accompanied visit to the appeal site and several properties in the vicinity on 6 February 2009. As agreed, I carried out a series of unaccompanied site visits to take in the most important viewpoints, existing wind farms at High Pow Farm and Wharrels Hill, the site of the proposed wind farm at Grise and the site of a proposed wind farm at Hoff Moor, dismissed at appeal (APP/H0928/A/07/2053230). I also passed close to the existing wind farm at Great Orton, observed the facilities at Bank Mill Nurseries, and spent some time in and around Silloth.

2. These unaccompanied visits took place on 11 and 12 February 2009. The weather on 11 February was dry and clear. On the 12 February it was cloudy with occasional snow flurries. On both days, visibility was more than adequate for the purposes of my site visits.

3. The proposal triggered a need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under the provisions of Statutory Instrument 1999/293. The originating application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) that deals with a wide range of matters. Further information was submitted during the appeal process. The adequacy of the ES is not in dispute. I have taken the ES and the further information into account in determining the appeal.

Decision

4. I allow the appeal, and grant planning permission for the erection of four wind turbines and associated infrastructure and services including site roads, crane pads, substation control building and temporary construction compound at Parkhead Farm, Silloth CA7 4PZ, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref.2/2007/0076, dated 22 January 2007, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in Annex 1 to this decision.

Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

Main Issue

5. This is whether any harm caused in terms of the landscape, tourism, the living conditions of nearby residents, ecology, and any other matters, is outweighed by any benefits that may flow from the proposal.

Reasons

The Policy Background

6. As set out in the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG), the development plan includes the North West of Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS), the saved policies of the and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (JSP), and the Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, adopted in 2006 (LP). The SoCG identifies the most salient policies.

7. RSS Policy EM1 seeks to identify, protect, enhance and manage environmental assets. Policy EM1(A) refers to the landscape and the need to identify, protect, maintain and enhance its natural, historic and other distinctive features. This is to be informed by recognition of the special qualities of, amongst others, the Lake District National Park, the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and World Heritage Sites, and their settings.

8. RSS Policy EM17 requires at least 10% (rising to at least 15% by 2015 and at least 20% by 2020) of the electricity which is supplied within the Region to be provided from renewable energy sources by 2010. According to the SoCG, the target for Cumbria is 210MW by 2010. Criteria that should be taken into account in assessing renewable energy schemes include, of most relevance, the impact on local amenity, the landscape, World Heritage Sites, other national and international designations and their settings, and nature conservation.

9. JSP Policy ST4 deals with ‘major development proposals’ and is permissive where, in essence, the benefit outweighs the detriment, the proposal complies with best practice for environment, safety and security and alternative less harmful locations and methods have been fully considered and rejected. The policy goes on to specify that all possible measures should be taken to minimise adverse effects and, where appropriate, provision made to meet local community needs, and decommissioning and site restoration. Policy ST4 defines ‘major development’ as one that has significant environmental effects and is more than local in character. Given that it required an ES following an EIA, it could be argued that the policy should apply. However, the text accompanying the policy says that it should be applied to large scale renewable energy supply schemes. I deal with this below.

10. JSP Policy R44 refers to renewable energy schemes outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs. Proposals should be favourably considered where there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area, whether individually or cumulatively; there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications; and the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any such impacts. The policy also states that the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight and requires measures for decommissioning and remediation.

2 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

11. JSP Policy E37 stipulates that development should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of the landscape. Proposals will be assessed in relation to, of relevance, locally distinctive natural or built features; visual intrusion or impact; scale in relation to the landscape and features; public access and community value of the landscape; historic patterns and attributes; biodiversity features; and openness, remoteness and tranquillity.

12. LP Policy EN19 requires development proposals to have particular regard to the conservation and enhancement of the landscape. LP Policy EN20 deals with proposals within or adjoining the Solway Coast AONB and notes that the protection of its natural beauty will be given priority over other planning considerations.

13. A number of criteria are set out against which proposals will be judged. Criterion (i) prohibits any development that would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the natural beauty of the landscape unless there is an overriding need for it and the standards of criterion (v) are met. Criterion (ii) militates against any major developments unless, of relevance, they are in the national interest and the standards of criterion (v) are met. Criterion (v) says that all development within or adjacent to the AONB must preserve or enhance the distinctive landscape character and heritage of the area through appropriate siting, design, materials and landscape measures which minimise resultant environmental harm

14. LP Policy EN25 seeks to strictly control development in the open countryside. Proposals that would cause unacceptable harm to the landscape will not be permitted unless an overriding need can be demonstrated.

15. LP Policy EN26 addresses development proposals that may affect a European site, a proposed European site or a Ramsar site. Development that would have significant effects on the site will not be permitted unless (i) the need cannot be met in a less damaging way elsewhere; (ii) there are imperative public interest reasons; and (iii) conditions can be applied that would prevent damage to wildlife habitats or enhance the nature conservation interest of the site.

16. I have also noted the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that replaced the previous Supplementary Planning Guidance: Wind Energy Development in Cumbria. The SPD has been the subject of consultation and has been formally adopted by Allerdale Borough Council, amongst others. As such, notwithstanding some of the criticisms made of it, that I deal with below, it attracts significant weight.

17. For the purposes of the SPD, the proposal which comprises four turbines is defined as a ‘small group’. On this basis, my view is that it does not trigger the requirements of SP Policy ST4 which is intended to deal with large-scale renewable energy supply schemes. The area around the appeal site is deemed to have a low/moderate capacity to accommodate a small turbine group and exceptionally a large group.

18. I have also had regard to Government guidance in Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (PPS22) and the Companion Guide, Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) and the Annexe on Climate Change, and Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7), amongst others.

3 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

The Site and the Proposal

19. The site of the proposed wind farm, which covers about 76 hectares in total, is approximately 3 kilometres south-east of Silloth and about 4 kilometres west of . The site is currently in agricultural use as part of Parkhead Farm and is predominantly used for pasture and to grow potatoes.

20. The four wind turbines and associated infrastructure proposed would be located in two fields, separated by an unclassified road that runs past Parkhead Farm towards . The turbines would have a blade tip height of up to 121 metres and a hub height of around 80 metres. According to the SoCG, each turbine would have a generating capacity of approximately 2MW. Connection to the electricity network would be facilitated through an underground cable.

Landscape Considerations

21. The landscape of the area around the appeal site, including the AONB, has been assessed and described in the Cumbria Landscape Classification, produced by Cumbria County Council, and The Solway Coast Landscape, prepared by the Countryside Commission. Both date from 1995.

22. These assessments have fed into the SPD and this gives a neat summary of the landscape in the Landscape Type 2: Coastal Margins Capacity Statement. It says ‘The Solway Coast is distinguished by a remarkable sense of wildness and remoteness, due to the presence of extensive wildlife habitats, lack of large- scale industrialisation and absence of main roads and railways. Overall scenic quality is based on a diverse sequence of open sea, foreshore, salt marshes, dunes and heath contrasting with inland landscapes of farmed coastal plain and mossland.’ A more local description put forward at the Inquiry is that the landscape in and around the AONB is as ‘flat as a pancake’.

23. There was some discussion at the Inquiry about the concept of ‘valency’. This relates to the varying reactions people have to wind turbines in the landscape ranging from those who regard them as elegant, sculptural objects that are a positive sign of our fight against climate change to those at the opposite extreme, who regard them as offensive, man-made interventions in the landscape that should not be countenanced.

24. However, I am not altogether clear how this concept allows a decision-maker to come to an objective conclusion in relation to the landscape impact of a wind farm. One of the key principles of PPS7 states that the Government’s overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, amongst other things.

25. In simple terms, it seems to me that a man-made intervention of the scale proposed cannot have anything other than a negative impact on the intrinsic value of a landscape. Very fairly, the appellant’s landscape witness accepted that a precautionary approach was required. This is reflected in many of the appeal decisions on wind farms that have been brought to my attention.

26. During my site visits, I took in most of the viewpoints highlighted in the ES and others to which my attention was drawn. Where I refer to a numbered viewpoint, this refers to the series of viewpoints set out in the ES (Figures) document.

4 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

27. The Council told the Inquiry that, at 121 metres in height, the wind turbines would be taller than Big Ben or the dome of St Paul’s Cathedral. I agree that they would be structures of a colossal scale. At the closest publicly accessible point, where the road that splits the appeal site would pass through the cluster, the turbines would have an oppressive, dominant impact and dwarf their surroundings. From a little further away, in the vicinity of Highlaws (Viewpoint 7), (Viewpoint 5), and Kingside Hill (Viewpoint 9), the harmful effect would be much the same. The movement of the turbine blades would draw the eye even more and magnify the impact.

28. The SPD Landscape Type 2: Coastal Margins Capacity Statement makes some important points about the landscape in concluding that the coastal margins (of which the appeal site is a part) has a low/moderate capacity to accommodate a small turbine group and exceptionally a large group. For example, it notes that the flat coastal horizons and big skies offer opportunities for simple contrast to evoke a strong sense of purpose and rationality.

29. In more distant views, notwithstanding the movement of the turbine blades, these factors would be brought into play. From the most distant viewpoints like Southerness Point (Viewpoint 1) and Riddingdyke (Viewpoint 3), I saw that given the scale of the panorama, the effect of the proposed wind farm on the overall landscape would be marginal. I did not climb to the top of Criffell (Viewpoint 2) or Skiddaw (Viewpoint 18), or take in the Caldebeck Fells (Viewpoint 19) or Green How (Viewpoint 20) but visual information in the ES shows that from these distant locations, the effect would be much the same.

30. Though closer to the appeal site, a similar assessment applies to the impact from the Hadrian’s Wall Path, south of Glasson (Viewpoint 4), Rabe Cote Bridge (Viewpoint 13), the B5302 between Wigton and Waverbridge (Viewpoint 16), from the Cumbrian Coastal Way at Newton Arlosh and Powhill (Viewpoint 14), and from the B5299, east of (Viewpoint 17).

31. As one gets closer still to the appeal site, the impact would increase but because of the scale of the panorama, the flatness of the topography and the big skies, the turbines would not dominate the landscape. To my mind, this is true of the view from Calvo (Viewpoint 8) and from Abbeytown (Viewpoint 10). From the edges of Silloth (Viewpoint 11) these factors would apply again and landscape impact would be reduced further by the backdrop of the mountains beyond and the caravans and other man-made structures in the foreground.

32. The Solway Coast AONB is divided into two sections. The first that lies along the coast between Maryport and the southern fringe of Silloth, is to the west of the appeal site. The second section, between the northern fringe of Silloth and Rockliffe Marsh, is to the north. There are various strands to the Council’s and others’ concerns about the impact of the proposal on the AONB. The first relates to the impact on the AONB itself, the second, the impact on its setting.

33. I have considered carefully the evidence put forward by the Council and others but in my view, while the turbine cluster would be visible from various points within both parts of the AONB, there would be no impact on the landscape of the AONB itself. I reach this conclusion for the simple reason that the appeal site lies outside its boundaries. The impact of the proposal cannot be equated with that of the Anthorn Masts that lie within the boundaries of the AONB.

5 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

34. It is clearly the intention of various policies, ranging from PPS22, RSS Policies EM1(A) and EM17, and LP Policy EN20, that the setting of the AONB should be taken into account. However, I do not conflate visibility of the turbine cluster from within the AONB, or the presence of the turbines in views towards the AONB, with an impact on its setting.

35. To my mind, the setting of the AONB is the area, relatively close to its boundaries, that defines it. I recognise that the farmed coastal plain of which the appeal site forms part, runs up to the boundaries of the AONB, with little variation. However, I do not regard the appeal site itself as being part of the land that defines the boundary of the AONB for the simple reason that it is too far removed from that boundary to act as such. To conclude otherwise, in my view, would be to impose a buffer zone around the AONB of the type that paragraph 14 of PPS22 seeks to avoid.

36. From the southern part of the AONB, at Bank (Viewpoint 15) and from the Cumbrain Coastal Way at (Viewpoint 6), and various other points along the coast, the turbine cluster would be visible. However, the degree of separation is such that the turbines would not appear particularly dominant within the panoramic view, set against the flat horizon and big sky. Views would be intermittent, because of the dunes, but I do consider that the emergence and disappearance of the cluster would be particularly damaging because any receptor’s view would not be solely concentrated on the turbines. There would be other, more attractive features, such as the dunes and the seashore, in much closer proximity, that would draw the eye. From the northern part of the AONB, similar conditions would apply. From Grune Point (Viewpoint 12) and elsewhere, the impact of the turbines would be diluted by distance and topography, the scale of the panorama, the backdrop of the mountains beyond, and the buildings on the fringes of Silloth. From what I saw, there are no significant views into the AONB that the presence of the proposed turbines would injure.

37. The qualities of the AONB include ‘a remarkable sense of wildness and remoteness’. The proposal would affect those qualities to a degree because the introduction of man-made features of the scale proposed, visible from points within the AONB, would reduce the sense of wildness and remoteness. However, given the distance between the AONB and the appeal site, and the visible presence of many other man-made structures (including on-shore and off-shore wind farms) from within the AONB, there would be no significant diminution of the qualities of the AONB, in my view, as a result of the proposal.

38. In terms of the cumulative impact, the number of existing turbine clusters in the wider area does mean that the proposal would be seen juxtaposed with other wind farms (existing and/or proposed), and for that matter the Anthorn Masts, from most of the viewpoints identified. In this sense, I agree with my colleague who dealt with the High Pow wind farm (APP/G0908/A/05/1172183) that the character of the landscape is shifting towards a distinct change.

39. The four turbines before me would add to that but I do not consider that there would be a damaging cumulative impact as a result of the proposal. I reach that conclusion because the other existing wind farms, other proposed wind farms, and the Anthorn Masts are sufficiently distant from the appeal site to prevent any obvious visual competition.

6 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

40. I acknowledge the reference to an ‘unresolved duality’ between the turbines proposed and the Anthorn Masts from some viewpoints but I do not believe that there would be any visual tension. Both would be seen as obvious, man- made interventions in the landscape that have different functions.

41. Clearly, from many of the viewpoints identified, a number of on-shore and off- shore wind farms are already visible. The proposal would add to that and I note that there are other proposals in the offing, at various stages in the planning process. However, while this is driving the landscape towards a distinct change, I believe that the landscape still remains the dominant element and that it is robust enough to accommodate the proposal before me without any significant cumulative impact. I agree that there must come a point where the landscape ceases to be dominant but that is something that must be dealt with when other wind farm proposals, in the pipeline, are considered.

42. The harm to the landscape that would be caused by the proposal could be assuaged to a degree. While the sheer scale of the turbines would be inescapable close-up, this is true of any wind farm and my visits to High Pow Farm and Wharrels Hill confirmed this. However, a suitable design and proportion could give the structures a more pleasing appearance, particularly from middle-distant and distant views. Allusions were made at the Inquiry to the use of classical proportions to govern the relationship between hub-height and top of blade tip and I agree that this would be a good starting point if the rather ‘stumpy’ appearance of some turbines, where the tower appears too short for the rotors, is to be avoided. The way in which some of the wind farms I saw merge into the backdrop from some viewpoints – this is true of High Pow Farm and Wharrels Hill when viewed from points west especially – shows that the choice of coloured finish is also important. Detailed design and the coloured finish of the turbines can be controlled by condition.

43. The SPD comments that ‘ much of the coastal plain landscape is large scale and open with simple rectilinear field patterns that would aid the integration of a small/large group of turbines in a geometric layout.’ I note that the proposed layout of the turbines responds well to the geometry of the local field pattern and this would also aid assimilation in the landscape.

44. Criticisms were aimed at how unbalanced the grouping would appear from certain points but I do not consider that this would cause any particular problems. What is more important, it seems to me, is that the turbines would respond to their site because their layout is generated by the field pattern.

45. In simple terms, my conclusion on the landscape impact is that, despite the scale of the Zone of Visual Influence, it would be most severe close-up and would reduce with distance. There would be no significant impact on the setting of the AONB and no impact at all on the landscape of the AONB itself, though there would be an impact on some of its inherent qualities. Given the degree of separation involved, the setting of the Lake District National Park and the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site would be unaffected.

46. I envisage no harmful cumulative impact in relation to other wind farms or the Anthorn Masts. The harm caused overall could be assuaged to an extent by careful design and the arrangement of the turbines.

7 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

Tourism

47. There can be no doubt that the area is attractive in a variety of ways and it has much to offer to the visitor including the AONB and its coastline, national footpath routes, national cycle routes, and access land, the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site and the facilities available in Silloth itself. The Lake District National Park is also easily accessible.

48. There is no dispute that the local economy is very reliant on the income from tourism. This is borne out by the evidence from the operator of Bank Mill Nurseries and those who run the caravan parks on the edge of Silloth.

49. In support of their case on this point the Council provided an analysis prepared by Cumbria Tourism. This refers to a document entitled Wind Farm Visitor Impact Research prepared for the Cumbria Tourist Board as part of their submissions to the Whinash wind farm proposal that was the subject of an Inquiry that opened in April 2005. Reference is also made to a more recent report, prepared for the Scottish Government, entitled The Economic Impacts of Wind Farms on Scottish Tourism. There is no empirical evidence that deals with the potential impact of the proposal before me.

50. The degree to which the presence of wind turbines in a landscape affects visitor intentions requires analysis. It is fair to say that the Inspector who dealt with the Whinash Inquiry did not accept the findings of the research prepared for the Cumbria Tourist Board pointing out that some respondents would regard a wind farm as an attraction in its own right and that the basis of the research was hypothetical. The Inspector considered the research in the context of other studies in areas of operational wind farms. I see no reason to take a different approach.

51. Both main parties rely on the Report for the Scottish Government, referred to above. Given that it relies on responses to wind farms that are in place, it seems to me a more reliable analysis. Amongst other things, the research shows that only a very small proportion, 1-7% of the 380 persons interviewed (the Council’s figure), would be actively dissuaded from visiting the areas under consideration if a wind farm was present. The research also shows that there are tourists for whom the experience of seeing a wind farm increased the likelihood of return.

52. The Council does not dispute these findings but points to the conclusion of the report. This reads ‘ Whilst it is clear that there is an impact, this impact is very small ’. The conclusion goes on to note that the evidence is overwhelming that wind farms reduce the value of the scenery. In essence, the Council’s case is that the value of the landscape is the primary draw for visitors and that a degradation of that landscape through the addition of another wind farm in the area will mean fewer visitors and consequent economic effects. Operators of facilities that rely on visitors to the area make much the same point.

53. However, the Council’s and others’ analysis is predicated on a conclusion that the local landscape, including the AONB and its setting, would be degraded by the proposal. Notwithstanding the broad conclusions of the Report for the Scottish Government, I have concluded in my analysis that the level of harm to the landscape, as a consequence of the proposal, would only be significant close-up, and that there would be no harmful cumulative impact.

8 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

54. It must follow that if the impact on the landscape is not significant, then the degree to which it is attractive to visitors would not be significantly denuded either. It also seems fair to add that some new visitors might be attracted by a wind farm. Most importantly, bearing in mind the results of the Scottish research and the relatively small number of people discouraged from returning to an area by the presence of a wind farm it recorded, it seems to me that if there is to be an impact on visitor numbers and the local economy, as a consequence of the proposal, it will be insignificant. I have no empirical evidence that warrants any other conclusion.

Living Conditions

55. Evidence was put forward at the Inquiry that around 116 dwellings would be located within 2.5 kilometres of the proposal. From these dwellings in particular, the turbines proposed, at 121 metres in height, would represent a significant feature in the outlook from the property. The movement of the turbine blades would tend to draw the eye.

56. However, having regard to the acknowledged variation in public attitudes to wind turbines, it seems to me fair to record that not all residents of these dwellings would find the visual impact of the wind turbines proposed detrimental to their living conditions. Having said that, those close residents who spoke at the Inquiry, and whose properties I visited during the accompanied site visits, made it very clear that the wind turbines would be an unwelcome intrusion that would affect their quality of life.

57. It was very clear from my site visits that from ‘Parkhouse’, Dryholme Farm, ‘Blackdyke Cottage’ (also called ‘Oakline’) ‘Pasture House’ and ‘The Paddocks’, the turbines would dominate the view in certain directions. Though I did not enter them, properties in High Laws (Viewpoint 7) would experience a similar effect. Given that it is further away from the appeal site, the impact on the view from ‘Parkside’ would be reduced but nevertheless significant. The effect of the turbines proposed would be magnified because the current view from some of these properties also takes in the existing wind farms at Great Orton, High Pow Farm and Wharrels Hill and the off-shore Scottish wind farm, Robin Rigg, currently under construction in the . Proposals at Brownrigg Hall, West Newton, Tallentire Hill, and others more distant might also impinge in the future.

58. I recognise that people’s feelings about the potential impact of wind turbines may be more extreme before they are erected than afterwards. However, having heard what the residents of these properties think, taken in the views affected, and spent some time in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, I consider that the turbines would have a visual impact that would be detrimental to the living conditions of those residents closest to the site.

59. This negative impact would reduce with distance away from the appeal site. On top of that, the cumulative impact of the proposed wind farm and the other wind farms currently visible, and proposed, would be reduced because the other wind farms are, or would be, much further away and would take up only a very small proportion of the overall view. Also, some of the properties benefit from screen planting though I recognise that this may not be a permanent feature.

9 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

60. I have already concluded that the proposed turbines would sit relatively comfortably in the landscape because of their relationship to the field pattern, the nature of the topography, and the big skies. Careful design could also allow the turbines themselves a degree of elegance. To my mind, these factors, while they would not remove it altogether, would significantly reduce the degree of harm to the living conditions of nearby residents that would be caused by the visual impact of the structures.

61. The Council takes no issue in relation to the potential impact of noise and disturbance from the operation of the turbines on local residents, subject to suitable conditions. However, local residents and others expressed concerns. It is clear from the evidence I heard that people living relatively close to operational wind farms have experienced significant difficulties.

62. I undertook to visit operational wind farms at High Pow Farm and Wharrels Hill in order to gauge for myself the levels of noise generated. The turbines at both wind farms were turning at the time of my visits (the afternoon of 11 February 2009) in what I would say was a moderate wind. The only significant noise I picked up was the ‘rushing’ sound created when the turbines at Wharrels Hill were stopped to allow realignment directly into the wind. In normal operation, from an upwind and downwind position, both wind farms seemed relatively quiet and I heard none of the ‘whooshing’ or ‘thudding’ described at the Inquiry. Neither did I pick up any rhythmic humming (referred to as amplitude or aerodynamic modulation).

63. Of course, that is not to say that other, perhaps older, wind farms exhibit different behaviour. What it does demonstrate to me, is that the performance of a wind farm, in terms of the noise it creates, depends to a great extent on the site-specific characteristics of that wind farm.

64. There is no evidence that the wind farm proposed would have any of the effects described. Moreover, the appellant has put forward a range of conditions designed to address noise and disturbance in the context of guidance in ETSU-R-97: The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms .

65. Having compared these conditions to their equivalents, attached to some of the early wind farm planning permissions, in particular, I believe that they offer a significantly improved level of protection to local residents. In particular, the onus for measurement of noise emissions is placed on the operator not the Council. I am content that the conditions would ensure that any noise and disturbance from the wind farm, that had an undue impact on the living conditions of any local resident, could be dealt with. On top of that, as the Council pointed out, there is protection offered by other legislation notably in terms of statutory or private nuisance.

66. There is the potential for some noise and disturbance that might affect the living conditions of local residents, from the construction process. However, this can be adequately addressed through suitable conditions.

67. Some points were also made by local residents, and others, about the potential impact from shadow flicker. The ES identifies a number of properties that might be affected during the Winter months and suggests that this matter can be dealt with by a suitable condition. I agree with that.

10 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

68. While no direct reference has been made to potential problems with television reception, and any consequent impact on local residents, the appellant has prepared a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) that would address any problems that might result.

Ecology

69. Natural England (NE) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) initially raised objections to the proposal that underpinned the Council’s third reason for refusal. In simple terms, concerns were raised about the potential impact of the proposal on the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes European Site generally, but specifically, the impact on pink-footed geese through the risk of collision and the loss of feeding habitat.

70. Negotiations between the appellant and NE and the RSPB continued that culminated in the production of a UU that makes provision for a refuge for pink-footed geese, and its future management, in the event that planning permission is granted for the proposal. On the basis of the UU, EN and the RSPB withdrew their objections to the proposal shortly before the Inquiry opened and the Council did not pursue the third reason for refusal.

71. A number of interested persons made the point that the birds have a mind of their own and given that they have habitually fed on part of the appeal site, there may be a propensity for them to return. However, it seems to me that if an alternative, improved feeding source is provided nearby, they are more than likely to be attracted to that. In this way, there would be no loss of feeding habitat and the risk of collision with the turbines would be within reasonable bounds. In this context, I consider that the UU is sufficient to ameliorate any harm to pink-footed geese that might result from the proposal and the proposal complies with LP Policy EN26.

72. References were also made to the danger the turbines would present to other birds, notably buzzards. However, any wind turbine, more or less anywhere, will introduce a risk of bird strikes. However, the ES explains that the collision risk is small. I have no reason to dispute that conclusion.

73. Some interested persons raised issues around bats. No significant habitat destruction has been identified as part of the proposal. If any difficulties arose in implementation of the scheme, then the bats would be protected by other legislation. The ES suggests that the risk of collision is small because most bat activity would take place at heights below the level of the turbine blades.

74. Concern has also been raised about the impact of the proposal on otters, badgers and voles. I can see that the construction process might lead to difficulties. However, the appellant has suggested a condition requiring a protected species survey and, if any are found, mitigation measures. To my mind, coupled with other relevant legislation, this would offer sufficient protection to the species concerned.

Other Matters

75. NATS have commented that in air traffic control terms, the area is approaching capacity, but they make no objection to the specific proposal before me in aviation terms.

11 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

76. Worries about highway safety in relation to the vehicles that would require access to the site to facilitate implementation of the scheme have been fully addressed and while it would entail some disruption, I am content that implementation of the proposal would not cause any undue difficulty in highway terms. The mode of operation can be secured through a condition requiring a Traffic Management Plan to be approved. The provision of wheel and chassis washing facilities, again through a suitable condition, would also assist. Any damage to the highway as a result of implementation can also be dealt with by condition.

77. Some concern was raised around the precedent set by any grant of planning permission for wind turbines on the site. In effect, it is suggested that once a cluster of four was established, it would be possible for the operator to increase the numbers. There is logic in that but I have to deal with the proposal as presented. Any increase in the number of turbines would need a further grant of planning permission and this would entail more assessment of the impacts that I have examined. It is not necessarily the case that four turbines on the site will mean more in the future.

Benefits

78. While I note the points the Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery (FELLS) make about how much carbon dioxide would be saved by the proposal, there can be no doubt that even using FELLS preferred measure, there would be a substantial saving. Similarly, I note the points FELLS make about the implications of the variability of the wind resource in terms of the need for compensatory fossil fuel generating capacity. However, this seems to me to be more of a general criticism of Government policy in relation to renewable energy, and wind farms in particular, rather than something that relates directly to the proposal before me. The SoCG sets out that this specific proposal is not an appropriate forum for debating the merits of national policy as it relates to energy, renewable energy or climate change and I agree.

79. There ought to be no dispute about the seriousness of climate change and its potential effects or the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through, amongst other measures, the use of renewable forms of energy. Security of supply is also highlighted as an important issue. As set out in the SoCG, there is a cascade of Government policy documents that have fed into PPS22 and the Companion Guide and PPS1 and the Supplement on Climate Change.

80. This approach is also reflected in the regional targets set in the RSS. The 2MW that each turbine would contribute will make a relatively small, but tangible, contribution to the Government target of generating 10% of UK electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and for that to double by 2020. At the more local level, the proposal would contribute towards Cumbria’s renewables target of 210 MW by 2010. This represents a significant benefit. Other projects, notably various wind farms and a 1MW Anaerobic Digestor proposed for Silloth are being planned. However, notwithstanding these projects, I heard that the RSS target is nowhere near being met. The SoCG sets out that there is currently only around 69MW of installed capacity for all renewable energy schemes in Cumbria. In my view, this significant shortfall magnifies the benefit of the contribution that would be made by the proposal.

12 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

81. I accept that authorities in Cumbria, and especially Allerdale, feel that they have been asked to shoulder an unfair burden in terms of on-shore wind farms. However, in many respects, this is a product of the nature of the resource and geography. In the light of the national imperative, the perceived undue burden is not something to which I can attach significant weight.

The Balancing Exercise

82. As is amply demonstrated by the other appeal decisions that have been placed before me, cases like this require a balance to be struck between competing priorities.

83. I have identified harm in terms of the impact of the proposal on the landscape, especially close-up, the diminution of some of the qualities of the AONB, and the living conditions of the nearest residents through visual impact. However, the degree of harm could be assuaged to a degree by careful design, siting and the coloured finish. There may also be a very minor impact on tourism and, as a consequence, the local economy. On the other hand, the clear need to provide renewable energy facilities to combat global warming and improve energy security, as supported by national guidance and regional and local policy, weighs heavily in favour of the proposal.

84. This is a delicate balance and the Hoff Moor decision that the Council highlights demonstrates that, despite the pressing need for renewable energy, there are occasions when the balance falls against the proposal. However, that decision deals with a very different landscape area. Key principle (i) of PPS22 provides that ‘renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily.’ In my view, that is precisely the situation in this case. I consider that the limited harm identified is clearly outweighed by the benefits of the proposal.

85. In the light of the conclusion of the balancing exercise, while the proposal would fail to comply with RSS Policies EM1 and EM1(A), JSP Policy E37 and LP Policy EN19, it would comply with RSS Policy EM17, JSP Policy R44, LP Policies EN20 and EN25 and the approach of the SPD. Notwithstanding my conclusion that JSP Policy ST4 is not applicable, it is worth recording that the proposal complies with its requirements save for its approach to alternative sites and methods. In any event, these aspects of the policy have been overtaken by advice in PPS22.

Conditions

86. A schedule of conditions that had been prepared by the main parties was discussed at the Inquiry. Following that discussion a further list, with minor revisions, was submitted in an electronic format. I have considered the conditions originally presented and the post-Inquiry revisions in the light of advice in Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions .

87. In terms of the commencement condition, I can understand the concern of the appellant that the normal three year period might be insufficient to allow all the conditions to be dealt with in time, as well as procurement. As a consequence, I have allowed a five year period.

13 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

88. The proposal was presented in a ‘temporary’ form to endure for a period of twenty-five years from the point when electricity is first exported. A condition is necessary to deal with this matter.

89. Given the temporary nature of the proposal and the requirements of JSP Policy R44, a condition is necessary to secure a decommissioning and site restoration scheme and its implementation. A condition is also required to secure the removal of any turbine that fails to operate for a continuous period of a year.

90. The details of the turbines shown on the plans in the ES are rather sketchy. As I have set out, the design and proportions of the turbines, and their coloured finish, will contribute significantly to their integration in the landscape. Conditions are therefore necessary to require these details to be submitted for approval. I have amended the suggested conditions to leave options for design and coloured finish as open as practicable. A similar logic applies to details of the control building and substation compound.

91. A condition is necessary to ensure that no advertisements are displayed on the turbine structures and to ensure that the turbines all rotate in the same direction.

92. A condition has been suggested to identify the exact map co-ordinates of the turbines. I agree that this is necessary because the plans in the ES do not identify the proposed locations with sufficient precision. It is necessary to include a facility for adjustment by up to 20 metres should circumstances dictate. I do not believe that this would unduly disturb the geometric layout proposed. A condition is required to limit any illumination of the turbines or associated facilities.

93. It is important that construction of the wind farm is properly managed. To this end, conditions are necessary to require details of the temporary site compound(s) and associated facilities, a surface water management plan, a Construction Method Statement, details of the access to the site and measures for hedgerow reinstatement to be submitted for approval. Working times also need to be regulated. As indicated, conditions are also necessary to secure a Traffic Management Plan, wheel and chassis wash facilities and necessary repairs to the highway.

94. A series of conditions are necessary to deal with noise and potential effects on nearby properties. While those conditions suggested are quite complex in their format, requiring a separate schedule of guidance notes, I am satisfied that they offer a level of protection for local residents that is properly enforceable. For the benefit of clarity, I should record that the property referred to in the condition as ‘Blackdyke Cottage’ may also be known as ‘Oakline’.

95. As indicated, conditions are required to deal with any protected species and to ensure that hedgerows are not removed in the bird-breeding season. I have adjusted the suggested condition relating to protected species so that it is not just limited to badgers and otters as it seems to me possible that other species, for example, voles, might also be encountered. An archaeology condition has been put forward and this seems reasonable given the relative proximity of the appeal site to the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site.

14 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

96. Notwithstanding the content of the ES, no condition has been suggested to deal with shadow flicker. I accept that the effect might be relatively minor but I believe it is necessary to apply a condition to deal with this matter. I have framed this to require a scheme to be submitted for approval.

97. As a general point, a number of the suggested conditions contain the phrase ‘unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority’. To my mind, this leads to a lack of precision in the conditions affected because it suggests a means of avoiding the requirements of the condition that does not involve a formal application to the Council under Section 73 of the primary Act. I have therefore removed the phrase to ensure that the conditions comply properly with the requirements of Circular 11/95.

Conclusion

98. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Paul Griffiths

INSPECTOR

15 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

Annex 1

Conditions and Guidance Notes 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than five years from the date of this decision. 2) The permission hereby granted shall endure for a period of 25 years from the date when electricity is first exported from the wind turbines to the electricity grid network (the First Export Date). Written confirmation of the First Export Date shall be provided to the local planning authority within 1 month of the First Export Date. 3) Unless a further permission is granted, not later than 12 months before the end of the period of this permission, a decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of the management and timing of any works and a Traffic Management Plan to address traffic issues during the decommissioning period. The decommissioning and site restoration shall be completed, in accordance with the approved scheme, within 24 months of the end of the period of the permission. 4) If any of the turbines hereby permitted ceases to operate for a continuous period of 12 months (unless such cessation is due to the turbine being under repair or replacement) then a scheme for the decommissioning and removal of the turbine and any ancillary equipment and structures relating solely to that turbine, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority within 3 months of the end of the cessation period. The scheme shall be implemented within 12 months of the date of its approval by the local planning authority. 5) Prior to the erection of the wind turbines and installation of the transformer units, details of the design, dimensions, appearance and coloured finish of the turbines and transformer units shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. However, in the event that the turbine(s) or ancillary equipment fail and that a direct replacement cannot reasonably be obtained, an appropriate alternative replacement will be permissible, subject to submission of details and written approval from the local planning authority. 6) No advertisements other than safety or information notices shall be displayed anywhere on the turbine structures and the turbine blades shall all rotate in the same direction. 7) The turbines shall be erected at the following coordinates: Turbine 1: 313520 550820; Turbine 2: 313350 551100; Turbine 3: 313850 551130; and Turbine 4: 313680 551410. A variation of the indicated position of any turbine shall be permitted by up to 20 metres in any direction. A plan showing the position of the turbines as built shall be submitted within one month of the First Export Date. 8) Prior to the commencement of development, a plan to a scale of 1:500 shall be submitted to the local planning authority showing the location of the temporary site compound or compounds required in connection with

16 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

the construction of the development. Each plan shall indicate the location of the buildings, car parking, and boundary fencing. The plans shall describe the surfacing of each site compound and the means of drainage and dust suppression within the compound. Any fuel, oil, lubricant, paint or solvent stored on site shall be contained within bunds or double skin tanks, which must be capable of containing at least 110% of the largest capacity vessel stored therein. Thereafter any temporary site compound at the site shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. All temporary contractors’ site compounds shall be removed and the land reinstated to its former profile and condition no later than 9 months after the First Export Date. 9) Before construction of the control building and substation compound, details of the dimensions, appearance and external finishes of the building, the fencing and the surface of the compound shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 10) No development shall take place until a surface water management plan covering water treatment and the means of drainage from all hard surfaces and structures within the site and accesses to the local highway network has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. For the purposes of this condition, hard surfaces includes access tracks within the site, the substation compound, temporary construction and laydown areas, turbine pads and crane pads. The details to be submitted shall indicate the means of protecting groundwater, including private water supplies, and diverting surface water run off. 11) A wheel and chassis wash facility, which operates on a closed cycle, shall be operated throughout the construction period. 12) No development shall take place until a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) addressing traffic impact issues during the construction period has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The TMP shall include agreement on phasing of the construction of any accesses, details of routes to be used by construction traffic, any street furniture that needs to be moved to accommodate construction vehicles and any appropriate on-street waiting restrictions required. 13) The turbines shall not be illuminated and there shall be no permanent illumination on the site other than lighting required during the construction period, during planned or unplanned maintenance, or emergency lighting, and the PIR-operated external door light for the substation building door to allow safe access. 14) No development shall take place until a methodology for the identification, preservation and recording of archaeological remains has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. For the avoidance of doubt, the methodology will not propose invasive archaeological investigation prior to the start of construction.

17 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

15) No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The CMS shall include but not be limited to the following: i) Timing of works; ii) Fuel and chemical storage: measures to ensure any fuel or chemicals from plant do not cause pollution; iii) Waste: identification of all waste streams associated with works; iv) Environmental management: identification of mechanisms to ensure awareness of relevant environmental issues during pre-construction, construction and pre-decommissioning and details of emergency procedures/pollution response plans; v) Track construction: including the laying of underground cables alongside tracks, materials proposed and track reinstatement; vi) Exclusion fences: including marking off a buffer zone of at least 20 m between the edge of watercourses and any proposed works; and vii) Details of post-construction restoration. 16) No development shall take place until a Protected Species Survey Scheme that shall include any necessary mitigation measures, and a programme for their implementation that relates to the programme for the development as a whole, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 17) No vegetation shall be removed from the appeal site between 1 March and 30 June. 18) Construction work shall only take place between the hours of 07:00 – 19:00 on Monday to Friday inclusive, 07:00 – 13:00 hours on Saturdays with no such working on a Sunday or local or national public holiday. Outside these hours, construction work at the site shall be limited to emergency works and dust suppression. The receipt of any materials or equipment for the development, other than turbine blades, nacelles, and towers, is not allowed outside the hours set out. 19) The rating level of noise emissions from the combined effects of the wind turbine generators when measured and calculated in accordance with the Guidance Notes annexed as Schedule One to these conditions shall not exceed the values set out below. Where there is more than one property at a location the noise limits apply to all properties at that location:

During the hours of 23:00-07:00 hours (Maximum Noise Level L A90, 10min dB):

Standardised Wind Speed at 10m height (m/s)

Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Parkhead Farm 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 46 50 53 55 57

Dryholm Farm 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 45 49 52 56

Flagstaff Farm 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 47 49 50

Hayrigg Farm 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46 50 53 56

18 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

Highlaws

Gillbank

Pelutho

Park House Farm 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 44 47 50 51

Hayrigg House

Blackdyke Cottage

The Hill (nearest) Kingside Hill (nearest)

At all other times (Maximum Noise Level L A90, 10min dB): Standardised Wind Speed at 10m height (m/s)

Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 48 52 55 57 Parkhead Farm 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 44 47 50 52 53 Dryholm Farm 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 47 49 52 Flagstaff Farm 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 44 47 50 53 54 Hayrigg Farm

Highlaws

Gillbank

Pelutho

Park House Farm 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 42 45 47 50 52

Hayrigg House

Blackdyke Cottage

The Hill (nearest)

Kingside Hill (nearest)

20) 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 farm 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 farm at the location of the complainant’s property (or, in the event that access is not possible, at the nearest publicly accessible location acceptable to the local planning authority) following the procedures described in the Guidance Notes attached to these conditions in Schedule One. Where the complaint relates to a location that is not specified in the tables listed in condition 19, the relevant noise limits shall be those for the nearest property listed in the tables in condition 19. The results of the independent consultant’s assessment shall be provided to the local planning authority within two months of the date of notification of complaint unless otherwise extended in writing with the local planning authority. 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 dwelling house more than three kilometres from the nearest wind turbine generator.

19 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

21) Not later than the commencement of the operation of the wind farm, the wind farm operator shall commence to log wind speed and wind direction data by a method to be approved by the local planning authority and thereafter monitor such data continuously throughout the period of operation of the wind farm. This data shall be retained for a period of not less than 12 months. This wind data shall include the arithmetic mean wind speed in metres per second (ms -1) and the arithmetic mean wind direction in degrees from north for each 10 minute period synchronised with Greenwich Mean Time. At the request of the local planning authority the recorded data relating to a standardised height of 10 m above ground level and relating to any periods during which noise monitoring took place or any periods when there was a specific noise complaint shall be made available to it. Wind speeds at a standardised height of 10 m shall be derived either by direct measurement of 10 m height wind speeds or derived by calculation from measurements of wind speed at other heights or derived by calculation from the power output of the turbines by a method to be agreed by the local planning authority prior to commencement of the development. At the request of the local planning authority the wind farm operator shall provide within 28 days a list of ten-minute periods during which any one or more of the turbines was not in normal operation. This information will only be required for periods during which noise monitoring was undertaken in accordance with conditions attached to this permission. ‘Normal operation’ is defined in the Guidance Notes attached as Schedule One to these conditions. 22) No development shall take place until a scheme to identify potential damage caused to the carriageway of the highways which form the route to be used by construction traffic accessing the site in the TMP approved pursuant to Condition 12 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme will identify the length of carriageway(s) to be surveyed, include details of the surveys of the carriageway to be undertaken prior to the commencement of construction and at the completion of the development and proposals for the agreement of any works required following completion of the development to repair the highway, including a programme. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 23) No development shall take place until details of the proposed access and of any necessary highway improvements to facilitate the passage of abnormal loads, and a timetable for their implementation, have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented in full prior to the First Export Date of the wind farm. 24) No development shall take place until a scheme for the replanting of any hedgerows or boundary planting removed for the proposed access during construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include provision for the replacement of diseased or dead hedgerow or boundary planting and a programme. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

20 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

25) No development shall take place until a scheme setting out a protocol for the assessment of shadow flicker in the event of any complaint being received, including the remedial measures to be taken, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Operation of the wind turbines shall be in accordance with the approved protocol.

21 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

Schedule One: Guidance Notes For Noise

The following paragraphs are based upon steps 2-6 specified in Section 2 of the Supplementary Guidance Notes to the Planning Obligation contained within pages 102 et seq of ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97’ published by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry. It has been adapted in the light of experience of actual compliance measurements.

NOTE 1

Values of the L A90,10min noise statistic should be measured at the affected dwelling using a sound level meter of at least IEC 651 Type 1 quality (or the equivalent relevant UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements) (set to measure using a fast time weighted response). This should be fitted with a ½" diameter microphone and calibrated in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142: 1997 (or the equivalent relevant UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements). The microphone should be mounted on a tripod at 1.2 - 1.5 m above ground level, fitted with a two layer windshield or suitable equivalent according to current best-practice, and placed in the vicinity of, and external to, the dwelling. The intention is that, as far as possible, the measurements should be made in “free-field” conditions. To achieve this, the microphone should be placed at least 3.5 m away from the building facade or any reflecting surface except the ground.

The L A90,10min measurements should be synchronised with measurements of the 10- minute arithmetic mean average wind speed and with operational data from the turbine control systems of the wind farm or farms.

The wind speed and wind direction and a note of all 10 minute periods when one or more of the turbines was not operating normally should be provided to the consultant to enable an analysis to take place.

‘Normal operation’ is defined as all times other than times when one or more wind turbines are rendered non-operational by loss of connection to the electricity grid network; maintenance or repair work; application of emergency trips or alarms; or having been switched off or disconnected for any reason.

In the interests of commercial confidentiality no information is required to be provided for individual turbines or on the nature of any abnormality or for any period during which noise monitoring is not taking place.

In the event that access is not possible for whatever reason to the complainant’s property, then measurement and assessment of the level of noise emissions from the wind farm shall be made at the nearest publicly accessible location accessible to the local planning authority.

NOTE 2

The noise measurements should be made over a period of time sufficient to provide not less than 100 valid data points. Measurements should also be made over a sufficient period to provide valid data points throughout the range of wind speeds considered by the local planning authority to be most critical. In determining the wind speeds most critical the local planning authority shall have regard to those wind speeds which were most likely to have prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise. Valid data points are those that remain after the following data have been excluded: (i) All periods during rainfall.

22 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

(ii) All periods during which the measurement position is not within 45 degrees of being downwind of any wind turbine. (iii) All periods during which turbine operation was not normal.

A least squares, “best fit” curve of a maximum 4 th order should be fitted to the data points.

The rating level shall be determined for each integer wind speed. If the rating level lies at or below those set out in condition 19 then no further action is necessary.

NOTE 3

Where, in the reasonable opinion of the local planning authority, the noise emission contains a tonal component, the following rating procedure should be used. This is based on the repeated application of a tonal assessment methodology.

For each 10-minute interval for which L A90,10min data have been obtained, a tonal assessment is performed on noise emission during 2-minutes of the 10-minute period. The 2-minute periods should be regularly spaced at 10-minute intervals provided that uninterrupted clean data are obtained.

For each of the 2-minute samples the margin above or below the audibility criterion of the tone level difference, Ltm , is calculated by comparison with the audibility criterion given in Section 2.1 on page 104 et seq of ETSU-R-97.

The margin above audibility is plotted against wind speed for each of the 2-minute samples. For samples for which the tones were below the audibility criterion or no tone was identified, substitute a value of zero audibility.

A linear regression is then performed to establish the margin above audibility at the assessed wind speed. If there is no apparent trend with wind speed then a simple arithmetic average will suffice.

The tonal penalty is derived from the margin above audibility of the tone according to the figure below.

6

5

4

3

Penalty(dB) 2

1

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tone Level above Audibility (dB)

The rating level at each wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the wind farm noise level, as determined from the best fit curve described in Note 2, and the penalty for tonal noise.

The rating level shall be determined for each integer wind speed. If the rating level lies at or below those set out in condition 19 then no further action is necessary.

23 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

NOTE 4

If the rating level is above the limit set out in condition 19, a correction for the influence of background noise should be made. This may be achieved by repeating the steps in Note 2, with the wind farm switched off, and determining the background noise at the assessed wind speed, L 3. The wind farm noise at this speed, L 1, is then calculated as follows where L2 is the measured level with turbines running but without the addition of any tonal penalty:

 L2 L3  L =10 log 10 10 −10 10 1   The rating level is re-calculated by adding the tonal penalty (if any) to the wind farm noise. If the rating level lies at or below those set out in condition 19 then no further action is necessary. If the rating level exceeds those set out in condition 19, then the development fails to comply with condition 19.

24 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr P Tucker of Counsel Instructed by Burnetts Solicitors He called Mr R D Woolerton Director, Woolerton Dodwell Associates MA(LD) BA(Hons) FLI Mr R Taylor Director, Taylor and Hardy Ltd DipTP MRTPI

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr D Hardy Partner, Cobbetts LLP LLB(Hons) BCL (Oxon) Instructed by NPower Renewables Ltd He called Miss L Guthrie Principal Landscape Architect, SLR Consulting MA Hon MPhil Landscape Architecture MLI Mr D I Stewart Principal, David Stewart Associates MA (Cantab) DipTP MRTPI

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Dr B Irving Solway Coast AONB Manager, Liddel Street, Silloth CA7 4DD Margaret Wright Parkside, Causewayhead, Silloth CA7 4PB Duncan Findlay Parkhouse, Causewayhead, Silloth CA7 4PB Avril Hemsley-Rose Catlands Foot Farm, Meatsgate, Wigton CA7 1DF Colin Wright Parkside, Causewayhead, Silloth CA7 4PB Julie Harding Pasture House, Blackdyke, Silloth CA7 4PL David Montgomerie Chair of SOSAC, 15 Lawn Terrace, Silloth CA7 4AW William James Bank Mill Nurseries & Visitor Centre, Beckfoot, Silloth CA7 4LF Paul Flynn The Paddocks, Kingside Hill, Abbeytown CA7 4PN William Allan 21 Lawn Terrace, Silloth CA7 4AW Joyce Percival Gilhow, Townhead, Dearham CA15 7JW Bob Robertson 1 Moorside Road, Low Park, Kendal LA8 0EN Sarah Hemsley-Rose 26 Holly Bank, Whitehaven CA28 6SA Jane Davis MA The Farmhouse, Grays Farm, North Drove Bank, Spalding PE11 3JX David Brierley Whitriggs, Tytup, Dalton-in-Furness LA15 8JW Mr Connor ‘Oakline’, Blackdyke, Wigton CA7 4PL Councillor A Mackley Deputy Mayor of Silloth, c/o Cumbria County Council, The Courts, CA3 8NA

25 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524

DOCUMENTS 1 Council’s letters of notification 2 Statement of Common Ground 3 Unilateral Undertaking (TV Reception) 4 Unilateral Undertaking (Ornithological Matters) 5 Report: The Economic Impacts of Wind Farms on Scottish Tourism 6 Greenock Public Inquiry Report 7 Evidence submitted by Jane Davis MA 8 Appellant’s rebuttal of the evidence of Jane Davis MA 9 Representation from FELLS 10 Letters from Natural England (30 01 09) and RSPB (30 01 09) 11 Cumbria and Lake District JSP EiP Report (Extract): Policy R44 12 Submission of Mr James (Bank Mill Nurseries) 13 Photographs put in by Mr Connor 14 Table comparing conclusions of Guthrie/Woolerton 15 Information about Silloth 1MW Anaerobic Digestor (CORE) 16 Table of Suggested Conditions put in at Inquiry 17 Final Agreed List of Conditions submitted post-Inquiry

26