Allerdale Borough Council

2/2011/0373

Reference No: 2/2011/0373 Received: 19 May 2011 Proposed Temporary anemometry mast up to a height of 70m for a period of Development: 2 years Location: Land at The Close Mealsgate Wigton Applicant: Mrs Bridget McNulty Your Energy Ltd Drawing Numbers: Figure No. 1 - Site Location Plan HC-CW-70M-001-002 - Proposed Mast Figure No. 3 - Base Plan

Constraints: Radon Assessment British Coal Area

Policies: Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved) Policy EN25 - Protecting the open countryside

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 Policy R44 – Renewables outside the Lake District National Park and AONB

North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 Whilst the government has indicated their intention to remove the Regional Spatial Strategy as a material planning consideration, as yet this has not been statutorily concluded, therefore it continues to remain a planning consideration in the context of the current proposal.

Policy EM17 - Renewable Energy

‘Wind Energy in Cumbria’ Cumbria County Council Supplementary Planning Document

Planning Policy Statements Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22) – Renewable energy Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7)

Relevant Planning The site was recently the subject of a scoping opinion for turbine History: development (under SCO/2011/0003).

Representations: Boltons Parish Council – At a meeting with the developer the Parish were informed that the applicant already knew the wind speeds in the area and that the purpose of the anemometer mast was to provide information to their investors. The parish consider that the applicant’s knowledge of the wind speed is verified by the supporting information.

At a recent meeting the developer also advised a future application for the wind turbines will be lodged in 6-9 months time, which would be an insufficient timescale to obtain and analyse any meaningful data from the proposed anemometer.

The Parish therefore conclude the proposed mast contributes non- essential and unnecessary development in the countryside, contrary to the Council’s Local Plan policies.

County Highways – No objections.

United Utilities – No objections to the principle of the proposal. Advise there are two water mains laid adjacent to the site of the development. This will require access strips of 10m (5m on either side of the centre line of the main).

Further to a later site inspection by their engineer, there is only a small section of the pipe that would be affected, with no heavy vehicles near the mains. They withdrew their objection.

Environmental Health – No objections.

Natural England – The proposal does not appear to be within their scope of consultation, but it should not be interpreted that it results in no impact on its local environment. However, they would recommend that if the Local Planning Authority is aware from representations of protected species, further survey information should be provided with the application. In addition, the proposed design may facilitate enhancement of biodiversity measures, e.g. bird boxes.

Seek consultation on any future scoping opinion for any wind turbine scheme at the site.

Ministry of Defence – No safeguarding objections, but request that in the interests of air safety the mast is fitted with aviation lighting (25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting at the highest practical point).

Seek consultation on any future turbine scheme.

Fire Officer – No objections. Carlisle Airport – No objections subject to:

1. Any future changes to the proposal be notified for further comment to Carlisle Airport. 2. In the event of changes to aviation legislation, the person responsible for the turbines may be responsible to take corrective action if any turbine operations at the site become non-compliant or present unacceptable risk to aviation schemes (in a timely manner).

Arqiva – No objections.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust – No representation has been received to date (25 July 2011).

Civil Aviation Authority – Advise due to high demand of wind turbine development on the CAA resources they are unable to comment on the submitted timescale. Seek consultations with local airports.

NATS – No safeguarding objections.

The application was advertised on site and adjoining owners were notified.

49 letters of objection were received on the grounds of:

1. Landscape and cumulative effect: Harmful impact on the undeveloped landscape, plus additional cluster to the three nearby turbines at Pow Hill, and the existing Brocklebank / Sandale telecommunication masts – negative change to classification of landscape. 2. Detrimental impact on local residents: The additional mast will destroy the ‘sense of place’. 3. Rosley refusal decision: Similar refused planning decision on a planning application resisting additional anemometer masts. As there is another anemometer mast within three quarters of a mile next to the existing High Pow turbines, the proposed mast should be unacceptable. 4. Unnecessary and non-essential development: Production figures of the High Pow development were published in November 2009. The mast is three quarters of a mile from its associated mast on the same contour level. The existing turbines at High Pow were developed without prior installation of an anemometer mast. The scheme therefore is both unnecessary and non-essential.

5. Contrary to Policy EN25 of the Local Plan and PPS7 – Pre-cursor to future wind turbine development: Consider this should be considered at this stage due to the negative impact on the local amenity and impact on the landscape from the existing High Pow development. 6. Object to subsidies for big business and penalisation through fuel bills. 7. Detrimental impact of wind energy on tourists. 8. Request for monatorium on all wind farm development given a wind turbine scheme in Scotland having to be switched off due to noise disturbance. 9. Amount of CO2 spent in the construction of wind turbines negates the amount of energy saved. 10. Object to the name ‘Percy Hill’ and the site refers to ‘The Close’. 11. Reference to Cumbria Wind Energy Document, Document 1 Part 1, General Planning Guidance, Para 3a (adopted by Allerdale). ‘In a recent appeal decision the Inspector recognised the perception that the Solway, on and offshore, is planning host to a significant number of wind turbines and ‘approaching’ the stage where the character across a number of landscape types is shifting towards a distinct change’. 12. Unnecessary development as existing wind data is available. 13. Potential bird kill due to both resident and migrating bird species. 14. Land based turbines have large scale inefficiencies. 15. Financial profit to land owner. 16. Turbines cause noise, harm wildlife, disfigure the landscape and result in devaluation of properties. 17. The neighbouring High Pow developers erected their own anemometer mast last year. 18. Strong local opposition for further turbine development. 19. Ongoing noise complaints since April 2010.

Report Planning history

The site and its immediate surroundings was recently the subject of a scoping opinion for turbine development (under SCO/2011/0003).

The adjacent site to the east was also the subject of a scoping opinion for three turbines (under SCO/2010/0006).

More recently a 16m tall temporary (two year) anemometer mast has been approved and implemented (2/2010/0074) on the land to the east of the site.

A windfarm comprising of three turbines, 95m to tip height is located 1.23km to the east of the site, which was allowed on appeal following Allerdale’s refusal decision of the application (2/2004/0944) on the grounds of adverse impact on landscape and visual amenity of residential properties and the absence of any desk top study to evaluate the impact of mine workings.

The application site

The application site occupies an isolated rural location in the open countryside. The site and immediate surroundings comprises of open agricultural fields on an undulating slope.

Access to the site is via a field gate and access track from the highway to the south of the site. The nearest dwellinghouse is located 0.87km from the proposed mast.

The proposal

The application seeks temporary consent (2 years) for the erection of a 70m tall anemometer mast (194mm wide) which will incorporate sensors and instrumentation to read wind speed and direction. The mast will be supported by a range of four sets of guy wires which have a radius of 35m. The supporting access and design statement advises the mast is for the purposes of assessing the site’s potential for a wind turbine development.

The applicant seeks a 15m micro-siting allowance, but contests the visual impact of the development is limited by virtue of: its distance from local roads, the other existing turbines in the localities (with the mast being lower in height than the turbines, and the slim appearance of the mast which is finished in a dull grey galvanised steel finish). The site would be restored at the end of the temporary timescale.

Access to the site would be via the existing farm track using a 4x4 vehicle and trailer. The installation would take 3-4 days. The applicant contests that the equipment is essential to record and measure the wind, and it is crucial to measure the potential environmental benefits.

In response to the parish and objectors’ representations, the applicant advises the reasons for the mast are fourfold:

1 Environmental benefit : The measurements can be used to calculate the amount of CO 2 emissions reductions based on 2MW turbines. More specific assumptions can be made on individual turbine models. However, the most accurate way to assess the environmental benefits is to gather site specific wind data (from an on-site met mast). Although this data is not likely to be available before the planning application is submitted it can be used to choose the turbine model.

2 Noise monitoring : Baseline noise monitoring needs to be undertaken to understand the noise environment of the site and its surroundings which needs to be corroborated with on- site wind data (i.e. wind speed and direction monitoring).

3 Project financing : In seeking to secure funding for the wind farm project there is a need to demonstrate wind speed data for two years. This is needed to get the wind farm built and provide the CO 2 emission reductions.

4 Technical viability : Installing a met mast with instrumentation at different heights on the mast will enable an understanding of the wind environment which can influence the choice of wind turbine to maximise the generating capacity of the site, plus optimising the turbine layout.

In reference to existing sources of wind evidence the applicant responds: a Existing databases : They do use regional meteorological station and purchase data, but this is not enough to provide site specific data. b High Pow : No specific data is publically available for High Pow which is operated by a separate developer and their website only provides basic statistics and does not provide CO 2 emissions. The other operator does provide information on specific wind farms, but this is based on the number of certificates sold and wind speed. c Data from High Pow : Anemometers on the existing turbines are for the operation of the turbine and not for wind predictions (which will also be affected by the wake of the rotors). The met mast at High Pow is only 16m in height and therefore will not provide suitable information at hub height.

In reference to planning policies, the applicant contests ‘essential need development’ is where there is an essential locational (i.e. no alternative site) and functional need. The applicant considers the site has both a functional and locational need and is sited and designed appropriately. The applicant refers to the companion guide to PPS22 which refers to the need to place anemometers on site for at least a 12 month period to assist determining whether the site is a suitable candidate. (Any mast should be temporary and approximately the hub height of the planned turbine.)

They advise the 16m smaller height of the nearby temporary (2 year) anemometer mast approved (under 2/2010/0074) cannot deliver this information therefore there is an essential need for the development, with an anticipated wind turbine application later in the year. The principle of the development therefore is considered acceptable.

Officers highlight that the merits of the current application solely relate to its description as an anemometer mast. The objectors’ reference to wind farm development and the impact of turbines is not applicable or material to the current scheme, i.e. the development should be assessed on its individual planning merits as an ‘anemometer mast’. Any future scheme for turbines will be separately assessed under any future application on its individual planning merits.

Any decision on the current scheme would not pre-judge the Council’s case in determining any future wind turbine development proposal, i.e. if the current proposal is allowed it does not automatically mean the Council will support the principle of wind farm development at this location.

Officers in assessing the merits of the proposal acknowledge that the application site is located in the open countryside under which national and strategic and Local Plan policy only supports the principle of essential development in order to safeguard its character and landscape quality and amenity value. However, as outlined by the applicant, PPS22 accepts the principle of temporary anemometer masts in the open countryside as ‘essential’ development in order to obtain wind speed evidence from any future turbine development.

The applicant’s evidence has explained why such data cannot be obtained from existing sources and the grounds for the need for the development.

In terms of visual impact, the proposal constitutes a slimline mast which, especially given its temporary nature, will have no significant landscape impact on visual amenity.

Cumulative impact has not been substantiated at former appeals at Carwath (which included two separate anemometer masts) and Reathwaite which accounted for consideration of other man-made features (e.g. Brocklebank TV transmitter masts).

Indeed, the principle and environmental impact of such anemometer proposals at varying heights have been the subject of numerous decisions elsewhere in the Borough, including:

2/1997/0334 Wharrels Hill - 40m anemometer mast Allowed on appeal.

2/2002/0492 Westnewton - 50m anemometer mast Approved.

2/2004/0097 Derwent Forest - 50m anemometer mast Approved.

2/2004/1070 Winscales - 50m anemometer mast Approved.

2/2003/1152 Park Head Silloth - 50m anemometer mast Approved.

2/2004/1505 Newton Field, Allonby - 60m anemometer mast Approved.

2/2006/0693 Tallentire Hill - 51.5m anemometer mast Refused - Appeal allowed.

2/2007/1035 Broughton Lodge - 60m anemometer mast Approved.

2/2007/1156 Flimby Hall - 60m anemometer mast Approved.

2/2007/1251 Threapland Lees - 60m anemometer mast Approved

2/2010/0081 Carwath, Rosley - 60m anemometer mast Allowed on appeal.

2/2010/0377 Carwath, Rosley – 10m anemometer mast Allowed on appeal.

2/2010/0879 Reathwaite – 70.3m anemometer mast Allowed on appeal (including an award of costs).

These masts were predominantly approved for between 18 months and two years.

The only example of a refused anemometer mast (with subsequent appeal also being dismissed) was for two 70m anemometer masts at Tallentire Hill for 3 years as the Inspector concluded its timescale was more akin to permanent development. The subsequent application at the site (2/2006/0693) for 18 months was allowed on appeal.

Of significant importance is the recent appeal decision at Reathwaite which had been refused on the grounds of its impact on the landscape and cumulative impact with other structures.

The Inspector in dismissing the appeal accepted the development was an essential form of development and reflected national planning policy guidance.

The Inspector also attached significant weight to the temporary nature of the structure, its slimline appearance and previous planning decisions for the same type of development.

The Inspector did not only dismiss the appeal but also granted an award of costs as he considered that in the light of the above considerations the Council had acted unreasonably in refusing the application on the grounds specified.

Officers consider Members should give considerable weight to this former scheme, given that it relates to the same type of development.

Therefore, given the acceptance that the development has only limited impact on the landscape within previous appeal decisions, it is considered the proposal would not adversely affect the landscape.

Unlike the protected barn owl evidence submitted as part of the former Carwath anemometer applications there has been no specific reference to protected species in the submitted representation.

Consequently, in these circumstances, officers consider it would be unreasonable to request the survey on the limited ecological evidence referred to in the objections.

Overall, therefore, officers consider the merits of the proposal are acceptable in compliance with the guidance under PPS22, and the temporary nature and design of the scheme would not have a substantial harmful impact on its open countryside site and surroundings. Recommendation: Approved

Conditions/ 1. The development hereby pe rmitted shall be begun before Reasons: the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: Figure No. 1 – Met Mast Application Plan (Site Location Plan) HC-CW-70M-001-002 – 70m Met Mast Standard General Arrangement Figure No. 3 – Temporary Anemometer Mast Base Plan Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development.

3. The developer shall notify the Planning Authority when the development commences. The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of commencement, in accordance with a scheme of works to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development begins. Reason: The Council wish to re-evaluate an essential need for the development after this timescale due to its location in the open countryside, in compliance with Policy EN25 of the Allerdale Local Plan, Adopted 1999 (Saved).

4. Prior to the commencement of works details of air safety lighting details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented upon the erection of the mast hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of air safety.

Notes to Applicant:

2/2011/0373